Γ Ph We ι , ᾿ 
" «δ τα, ᾿ς ἐν J τ , ἂν Ἵ (4 
Vaan os ᾿ ΔΒ Peat ἐδὰ 




















νιν. TMOG PRK I ἀνα Sonata Ws hae 
| _E&<_l TE 
: B 4 O29 174 ὴ 
©) he Ruiversity of Chicaga 
Antithesis in the Attic Orators 
. from Antiphon to | 
Isaeus 
᾿ A DISSERTATION 
: : τ μέσοι τὸ παν tials scan ἼΒΕ cena SCHOOL OF ARTS AND 
᾿ | DOCTOR OF ἐν ΡΗ͂ ον he eG 
: (DEPARTMENT OF GREEK) 
ἱ 
ce BY 
: : JOHN EMORY HOLLINGSWORTH 


wt 


The Collegiate Press i 
GEORGE BANTA PUBLISHING COMPANY 
MENASHA, WISCONSIN 


1915 








Digitized by the Internet Archive 
in 2008 with funding from 
Microsoft Corporation 


https://archive.org/details/antithesisinattiOOhollrich 





Che University of Chiragn 


FOUNDED BY JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER 





Antithesis in the Attic Orators 
from Antiphon to 
Isaeus 


A DISSERTATION 


SUBMITTED TO TBE FACULTY OF THE GRAL ATE SCHOOL OF ARTS AND 
LITERATURE IN CANDIDACY FOR THE DEGREE OF 
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY 


(DEPARTMENT OF GREEK) 


BY 
JOHN EMORY HOLLINGSWORTH 


The Collegiate Press 
GEORGE BANTA PUBLISHING COMPANY 
MENASHA, WISCONSIN 


1915 






Ee Τὰ κὰν ἀν, Ke ᾿ an 


i> } " ek 
4 F ¥ 
4 bap ἐϊ ἢ " οὖ 4 \ ‘ “27 | ‘ 
bi! ᾿ Bre de 4 ‘a ia ine iis ind, 3. ! 
ἘΝ δόλια ΤῊ ΗΝ ΠΡΟΣ “ΑΓ Δ" “40 
reas Ὅν: που»: ἴασις ΤΙ: ) te ὶ 
ΝΥ ΝΟΥ ᾽ ἤν ἢ νυ Oe Whi re 
4 Ps a a © ’ ᾿ 7h ,o.8 | Pe tel ol 
ἱ 4 δ᾽ ᾷ γον“ ᾿ λοι ; ak ἣν ri i] δ" ‘ Γ ‘as 
ἸῸΝ ᾿ : } " 4 ‘ale ὶ 4 . ἡ \ 
ἢ >. ) “= e129 ι ih : , ᾿ 
ἵ ad i ᾿ 4 * 7 ’ 
Le 
a fy ae j y J ( 
τς ἢ Ἂ 
YY a tees , ’ " J 
a > - ‘ >) 4 
ΡΟ Τ: ; 
he oi age’ ἡ 3 ‘ ‘ ' ." 
ws alt q 4 ~ 
yet 3 ᾿ } a J ' ᾿ 
γ᾿ Hey. Art| 4 τ ᾿ ἢ ‘ i 


Sa es = ἡ ie A wae as pons j γ ΝῊ ΝΥ i” meres ΠΥΡῚ ἡ κὰν Ἣ τς 
a oe ᾿ ‘ oli at ἵ ve) ᾿ yw ᾿ .Ν a pal auras © Rite) ἢ ἊΣ 4 ate ae ἊΝ 
: A POs ; 


aay Ὶ ' ὃ ΝΣ Pathe Ah 
a, ae ᾿ bite 
Fed - υ if : Ἷ ‘ees 
eee ἐπ ἢ a NR Ha Dat, one 
ἢ ὦ δ} i els Ἅ 
ὁ aT 4 7 
1 i) 1 7 
ὲ a ‘ Lr a at ᾿ ΝΜ j 
L Wet ain . in? Ϊ δ AS 
: x 3) Ὶ Ne Kok 
" Pua . an > i Ay a 
J 7 “ 
ry: ᾿ Ay ἢ J ; ay oe 
j ' ΠῚ 
‘ MS , ᾿ ἵ } 
4 ; 
ia i \ 
rt ‘ ἥ Ἵ 
’ ι F εἕ 
δι i Ψ ᾿ Ι 
ae δέ ey ἡ At ee ἵ ν Δι } ἵ “ fi a 
ὲ Ρ VU , ᾿ f 
ὕ ; mn ve > a) 3 
2 4 7 
| { xe? δ ἢ PT MS ὁ 4 ‘ ‘iy 
ee ὖν ς᾽.) ah ek ΑΝ, : ἐφ 
ὰ Ψ a2) ee q 7 j i 
bie Can $919,086 6 11.9 °° ies 
γ.Ὁ4 Ἧ eT ery: 4 24 a of 3 z 3? “ Pa . 
᾽ . 
ἘΠ FIST ATIF το se 598 σον Prone 
aS ! A Le M J Ν ἡ Ἧ ay 
. ' Ἢ 
δ τ ἊΝ ᾿ i >) Mi ' ᾿ ‘ , ἢ ὸ ; 
νυ, Be “aA. ; i ἫΝ as er ἡ ord ων 
Β . i > τυ * 4 : J 
Np Cat ea ee te Rca ny ΝΣ 
‘yr ᾿ ͵ ν᾽ ᾿ b 


DESH eT |; 





ἫΝ ΣΝ 


PREFACE 


The Greeks were the first, so far as we know, to employ antithesis 
extensively; first to analyze it, and formulate the principles of its usage. 
Any scientific treatment of the figure must accordingly begin with them. 
The field of Attic eloquence has been chosen as being the most suitable 
for the study of the subject. And there is no better standard than 
antithesis for a comparative study of the rhetorical style of the several 
orators. 

The investigation led to a survey of the use of the figure in antecedent 
Greek literature, and to the expositions of the phenomenon by the 
Greek Rhetoricians. An appendix, giving a brief sketch of antithesis 
in the Bible and in English Literature, was not thought out of place 
in view of the fact that so little attention has been given by scholars 
to this feature of expression in our own language. The theme of inves- 
tigation was suggested by Professor Paul Shorey, whom I wish to thank 
for the benefit of his supervision and criticism. I am also indebted to 
Professor R. J. Bonner for the removal of not a few errors and for valu- 
able suggestions. 

Joun Emory HOoLiincswortu. 

Chicago, 1915. 





ira a 
a 
AIA chee 


CONTENTS 


PAGE 

ENTRODUCTORY JINEMARKS 4000 Cer 014, Fg aa Pare rl ei We ALD og eee ΤῊΣ VII 

I. ANTITHESIS AS TREATED BY THE GREEK RHETORICIANS ...... 1 

EEC VANTITHESIS BEFORE THE ATTIC ORATORS». 0. eles: 15 
III. ANTITHESIS IN THE ATTIC ORATORS FROM ANTIPHON TO 

SABE 5: he Ste Ak A ea ἐδ hey et ark lay ne ΣΡ GY APLAR Seal 2h 

Ve eEST OR PANTETEE TIC ΠΈΝΘ fos eee tue ie τ ἀπ Πν 69 


APPENDIX 


ANTITHESIS IN THE BIBLE AND IN ENGLISH LITERATURE ........ 80 


ars 


PSO a a Ala δὴν 
μὰ Pi Any τ νὰ ᾿ 
᾿ wt ᾿ ἵ J | » A ‘ 


' 
1 


OY? if re oye, ths 
in BLU son ᾿ 


‘ 
᾿ ΜΝ: 


χὰ ts 
ὶ 
J 


Δ 


ἀμ ARG A Ue ee 
oa 7 it 

ra van r wo 4 

Υ aa 44 ey om 


te 


was) | ᾿ Ἷ ΕΝ ἫΝ 
Nie. bey ee ed ee vit ae ἊΝ ew εν Ν 
“ὦ ΚΑ Oo ἌΝ : " ἌΝ ee ur Tab 


Υ 
ἐν 


a vii. 


; ν 
ASS a 
aw 
yt 


ΨΟΣΉ, 
vebwtt 
ΝΑ 
al a 


av {ἢ 


Ϊ a ἡ 
᾿ We at 





INTRODUCTORY REMARKS 


A Figure of Speech has been defined as a device for expressing thought 
in an unusual or indirect way; a turning aside and change from the 
ordinary channels either to gain beauty of expression or for the sake 
of greater utility. Of such devices Antithesis is one of the most simple 
and most effective. ‘‘It is a first principle of the human mind that we 
are affected only by change of impression; as by passing from hot to 
cold, from hunger to repletion, from sound to silence. This applies to 
both Feeling and Knowledge.’ 

The invention of such a fundamental mode of expression cannot 
reasonably be attributed to any one people or geographical section. 
We should expect to find traces of it in every language that has developed 
far enough to be artistic, or has produced a literature of its own.? Espe- 
cially shall we look for it in those languages which though “dead” 
have transmitted world literatures which have inspired idealism in 
religion and art—the Hebrew and the Greek. 


1 Tiberius (Spengel, Rhetores Graeci, 111, 59): ἔστι τοίνυν σχῆμα τὸ μὴ κατὰ φύσιν 
τὸν νοῦν ἐκφέρειν, μηδὲ ἐπ᾽ εὐθείας, ἀλλ᾽ ἐκτρέπειν καὶ ὅτι ἐξαλάσσειν τὴν διάνοιαν κόσμου 
τινὸς ἢ χρείας ἕνεκα. Cf. Quintilian (Institutio Orat., TX, 1, 14): ergo figura sit arte 
aliqua novata forma dicendi; also Bain (Elements of Rhetoric, p. 1): “A Figure of 
Speech is a deviation from the plain and ordinary mode of speaking, with a view to 
greater effect”; similarly, Quackenbos, Practical Rhetoric, p. 257. 


2 Bain, Op. Cit., p.45. Cf. Aristotle, Rhet., III, 9, 1410 a: ἡδεῖα δὲ ἐστὶν ἡ τοιαύτη λέξις, 
ὅτι τἀναντία γνωριμώτατα Kal παρ᾽ ἄλληλα μᾶλλον γνώριμα, καὶ ὅτι ἔοικεν συλλογισμῷ" 
ὁ γὰρ ἔλεγχος συναγωγὴ τῶν ἀντικειμένων ἐστίν. Aristotle is here explaining antithesis 
on the principle of his oft-repeated statement that the Knowledge of Contraries is 
One: see Bonitz, ad Metaph. B 2, 996 a 18, and Cope’s note on the passage (Arist. 
Rhet. [Sandys], Vol. III, p. 103). Compare Hill, Science of Rhetoric, p. 238: ‘ Antith- 
esis is a form of expression which impresses an idea upon the mind by bringing oppo- 
sites into one conception.” 

“Tt (antithesis) is based on the law of mental association. In thinking of one thing, 
or class of things, we think of others similar to them, but also of others different from 
them. Like suggests not only like but unlike.’—T. W. Hunt, Principles of Written 
Discourse, p. 107. 


3 Cf. Marmontel, Eléments de Litérature, p. 163: “‘La plupart des grandes pensées 
prennent le tour de l’antithese, soit pour marquer plus vivement les rapports de différ- 
ence et d’opposition, soit pour rapprocher les extrémes.” 


vill ANTITHESIS IN ATTIC ORATORS, ANTIPHON TO ISAEUS 


We conceive, therefore, that the tendency toward antithetical expres- 
sion is one of the first efforts of a language to be artistic. A feeling 
of self-consciousness accompanies this period, and it is natural that 
after a language has once reached this point in its development it should 
profit by the advances other languages have made in the same direction. 
Hence the value of studying this feature of expression in an ancient 
literature which has directly or indirectly affected the form and struc- 
ture of so many modern languages. 


LITERATURE ON THE SUBJECT 


1. Reference is made to the following editions of the Attic Orators: 
Aeschines, Blass, 1908; Andocides, Blass, 1880; Antiphon, Blass, 1892; 
Demosthenes, Blass, 1901, 1908; Dinarchus, Blass, 1888; Hypereides, 
Kenyon, 1906; Isaeus, Thalheim, 1903; Isocrates, Blass-Benseler, 1902- 
1904; Lycurgus, Blass, 1907; Lysias, Thalheim, 1901; also to Roemer’s 
edition of Aristotle’s Rhetoric (1885), and Spengel’s Rhetores Graeci 
(1885). 

2. General works of reference: Blass, Attische Beredsamkeit, 3 Vols., 
2te Aufl., 1877-1893; Gebauer, De Hypotacticis et Paratacticis Argumenti 
ex Contrario Formis, Zwickau, 1877; Gerber, Die Sprache als Kunst, 
2 Vols., Berlin, 1885; Jebb, Aétic Orators from Antiphon to Isaeus, 2 Vols., 
2d Ed., 1893; Kemmer, Die Polare Ausdrucksweise, Wuerzburg, 1903; 
Navarre, Rhetorique avant Aristote, Paris, 1900; Norden, Antike Kunst- 
prosa, 2 Vols., 2te Aufl., Leipzig, 1909; Volkmann, Rhetorik der Griechen 
und Roemer, 2te Aufl., 1887-1895. 

3. Dissertations and theses: Baden, Principal Figures of Language 
and Figures of Thought in Isaeus and the Guardian Speeches of Demosthenes, 
Baltimore, 1906; Barczat, W., De figurarum disciplina atque auctoribus, 
Goettingen, 1904; Becker, J., De sophisticarum artium vestigiis apud 
Thucydidem, Berlin, 1864; Belling, De periodorum Antiphontearum sym- 
metria, Breslau, 1868; Both, P., De Antiphontis et Thucydidis genere 
dicendi, Marburg, 1875; Hermanowski, P., De homoeoteleutis quibusdam 
tragicorum et consonantiis repetitione eiisdem vocabuli ab Aeschylo effectis, 
Berlin, 1881; Kingsbury, S. A., A Rhetorical Study of the Style of Ando- 
cides, Baltimore, 1899; Lincke, E. M., De elocutione Isaei, Leipzig, 1884; 
Nieschke, A., De Thucydide Antiphontos discipulo et Homeri imitatore, 
Muenchen, 1885; Nieschke, A., De figurarum quae vocantur σχήματα 
Γοργιεῖα apud Herodotum usu, Muenchen, 1891; Robertson, C. A., 


INTRODUCTORY REMARKS ix 


Tropes and Figures in Isaeus, Princeton, 1901; Stein, F., De figurarum 
apud Thucydidem usu, Koeln, 1881; Steinburg, H., Betrage zur Wuer- 
digung der thucydideischen Reden, 1870; Straub, P. J., De tropis et figuris 
in orationibus Demosthenis et Ciceronis, Aschaffenburg, 1883; Vogel, P. J., 
In Dinarchum curae grammaticae criticae rhetoricae, Leipzig, 1877. 

Only a general summary of the dissertations need be given here 
since they will necessarily be touched upon later in connection with 
their special fields of investigation. In many of them antithesis is 
treated incidentally as a secondary feature of the author’s rhetorical 
style. In any discussion of the “‘Gorgianic” figures, however, an- 
tithesis naturally assumes the foremost place; and in respect of these 
Nieschke has made a thorough investigation of Homer and Herodotus, 
Stein of Thucydides, and Belling of Antiphon.* Gorgias’s claim to be 
the inventor of the figures called by his name has been weighed;’ Anti- 
phon’s style has been compared with that of Thucydides;* and the debt 
of each of these authors to Gorgias and to their Hellenic precursers 
estimated.? In the present instance it is proposed to trace briefly the 
historical development of antithesis as a mode of literary expression 
among the Greeks, and to analyse the antithetical style of the earlier 
Attic orators. To this end the statements of the Greek rhetoricians 
regarding the figure will be examined, the use of the figure traced in the 
literary forerunners of the Attic Orators, and especial study made of 
the antithetic feature of style in Antiphon, Andocides, Lysias, Isocrates 
and Isaeus. The evolution of the figure in Greek Literature will thus 
be presented.? Before the time of Demosthenes, great master of the 
σχήματα διανοίας, a decline in the use of antithesis had set in. 

4 Belling’s object is to study Antiphon’s periodology. 

5 Becker, Nieschke, Robertson. 

* Both, Becker, Nieschke, (De Thucy.). 

7 Becker, and especially Nieschke. 

8 Hermogenes remarks (Spengel, Rhetores Graeci, 11, 236) that there was no more 
powerful or useful figure in antiquity than antithesis: οὔτε ἰσχυρότερον οὔτε ἀναγκαιό- 
τερον εὑρίσκεται σχῆμα Tov ἀντιθέτου παρὰ τοῖς ἀρχαίοις ῥαδίως οὐδέν. Cf. Shorey, 
in the Columbia University Lectures on Greek Literature, p. 11: ‘Montaigne said, 
“distinguo is the first word in my philosophy.’ It was the first and last in the 
philosophy of the Greeks. Distinction, antithesis, meditation and fluent codrdina- 
tion, we could follow them all together with the development of abstraction in 
poetry, architecture, philosophy, oratory, and rhetoric, till rhetoric and dialectic 
swallowed them all.” 










γι 


ὟΝ ΒΡΗ͂Σ ἵν ut {7 ὯΝ nea 






ieee? Un 


ws ᾿ ial in ANA τὶ 4a 8 ΟΝ ; 
Hot Sicha 
ments δον nt ahi ent pap ue 

ΡΝ ἘΌΝ, ἐδ μη: be Piel Suletites ΑΝ 
ee ea Ἔν heat ΣΝ 
i pi ἀν NSN ῷ Palla gra ahi ΕΝ, ἀμ δὴ ἡ 


, ne 
aT 's\ ah ee uty ἡ δύ ea Haga, ΤΥ ok": 


ΔΎ ΤΟΥ ἐν οι νυν ὁ. ened Bee Riba, ἜΝ el ᾿ Ὁ Δ ἣν ΜΑΙ τ +e ie ; 
he Υ ‘ δὶ o 
Be 0s νοὸς . 






























: ΑΝ ἢ bry ae ὴ ὁ Ἶ if ie Μὰ ἋΣ ΓΝ ων ἐν Ἧ at ΠΝ 4 Saar he Ni eh, 

SP SRA Se ai he a ‘grout bok Oy ΛΕ lia a ΤᾺ ἡ τ 5 

AUER i | ae in ey i ἢ i ae ἵν Ἂν ται ΤῊ A? f be “i A, Ay Kegon noe 2 os ay A 

απο Πρ 

7, ΩΝ τ Kal μη ἡ πὰ νυ ie ἀν a Ἢ ἢ ni re; ie Ἢ ve δὲ ' he 
ah Di a, ᾿ ἐδ YY ἢ Lag if 

Δ ΩΣ al : As ae a " 9! lg an i i ee uae # x: pee was rs th ὃ a ν ᾿ 

ἂνν Ι \ Ae ΧΑ Ἔν; “ars ΩΣ εὐ Oe ae Ἃ εν ἥ ΧΩ ms τὰ 

: ΓΗ I 2 Ἢ ως Ὁ ls ΡΝ ΠΝ ath τ + vite: ad nee ἜΜ " 

ee ὦ a ane eg Kd ΠΗ ἀκ ον ie OR eR iphone we Ss ey aie ἣν. 

et ree . | . ; 

υ ἢ 


( 4 ie ἡ ΩΝ λὺ 1 eee So ΑΗ 
“ \é 7 δ » (6a WM ϊ " ὰ ΝῊ teat ω γ' ἜΝ Ἢ ΒΑ ᾿ ᾿ 
; ‘ ͵ ᾿ " ΤῊ: ῃ ean Δ τὰ oe , ‘al ad Me 4 a6, rT) x Ce 4 Cw a a 


ὠ ἃ ‘ Λ ᾿ i, ) eg  ν wa τ ah, ἽΝ 4 
ΠΝ ᾿ (tena! & ic esha “ τ, τὰ} ων, vy 4 ΠῚ ῦ ἴω a? is ᾿ς a ᾽ν; vary af Ν ἢ brad ay 
EO ss ΟΡ γεν Ce eel et a) 
iP eA! ; "ὁ Bes hatte ; Pour » PM, wah πὰ as j YY yi oN tae oon 


᾿ ᾿ “ ϊ ᾿ " ᾿ γ Α 
ai Pie ate ΡΨ ρον ks 


eo i EE oe ᾿ 













) ἱ ε Ἢ ; ax Ἡ 1 Ve an ane wi Νὴ it Se) ὦ ΡΥ ΟΦ ΝΕ oni Sat Sat οὐ 
ὲ ΔΑ [ ἊΨ; 
ἣν ἡ. ' ᾿ or A med ον : é ὦ } , ὶ ΟΠ Ἢ ὝΣ ὌΝ, uate ry Bias | i 
ie tS 5 ‘ a ι νυν 
“τ Ἂ» ) ἢ ee . 5 5 εἰ x xe ahi - eo the aie i) *) 4 
ras ἂ ra P bs . 7 4 ᾽ γ "Ἁ , 
, ‘ A 7 ΓΙ i) ' 4 
ey ’ 'ὰ a. ; y a 4 
Da ᾿ ae " νυν. τι γε; ῃ 4 1 ad e@i 4 
a ἃ Lye) fa Gh ) ᾿ 5 
Lae? Ai ἂν ! : i deseo τὰν" 
y's 4 4 ee ᾿ οὖ ~*~ 3 ἢ i. . " Δ 7 τῇ Σ vile ; 
, ose a pein” 7 ns’ it Ὁ SEM palo had Sik ea : 
" we ra FEAR re 8 LI) ee eA a ag) Ὁ 
. Ven ; 
Pasar eye. EES γ δ. ων υηὸν γημν νην ae 
Lb Pe i rae a αν AE Ee OR ae ba bane ΙΝ a. Yaa) 
] Pant | ΝΥ, ΑΓ ΜΆ, ᾿ ᾿ ' 


I. ANTITHESIS AS TREATED BY THE GREEK RHETORI- 
CIANS 


The substance of what the rhetoricians have to say about the figure 
may be considered under two heads: a. Classification of the varieties 
of antithesis, with illustrative examples; ὃ. Remarks as to the value, 
function and abuse of the figure. The latter will be taken up first. 

Aristotle associates antithesis with the principle that the knowledge 
of contraries is one. Contraries, he says, are best recognized when 
placed in juxtaposition; the antithetic mode of writing is pleasant because 
it resembles a syllogism.' The fact that it gave symmetry of form, 
and was a means of uniting jointed, disconnected sentences, was thought 
by him and by other writers to be the chief function of the figure.2 By 
others it was held to be a means of embellishing discourse* and was 
considered particularly appropriate for the orator’s proémium.* On the 
whole, the value of antithesis as estimated by the ancients may be 
summed in the words of Cornificius (IV, 15): hoc genere si distinguemus 
orationem, et graves et ornati esse poterimus. 

The characteristic defects of antithesis, the danger of its indiscrimi- 
nate and excessive employment, were early pointed out. ‘‘Such devices 
do not contribute to vigor of style,’”” remarks Demetrius, criticizing a 
passage in Theopompus, “they are inappropriate to outbursts of passion, 
or to the delineation of character. Simplicity and naturalness is the 
mark alike of passion and of character-drawing.’® Dionysius brands 
the studied symmetry and cadence of such figures as παιδιῶδες καί 
καθαπερεὶ ποίημα." 


1 Arist. Rhet. III, 9, 1410 a; cf. above, p. VII, note 2. 

3 Demet. περὶ ἑρμηνείας 22 ff. Hermogenes II, 256 (in Spengel’s Rhetores Graeci). 

3 Cf. Isoc. XII, 2. Augustine (De Civ. XI, 18) speaks of antitheta quae appellantur 
in ornamentis elocutionis sunt decentissima. 

4 Hermogenes (Spengel) II, 236. 

5 περὶ ἑρμ. 27 (Robert’s Translation). 

6 De Lys. c. 14; he is criticizing the style of Thucydides. Similarly, in Ad. Am. 
II, 17, he remarks that the figures which Gorgias and his followers used to excess ill 
become the austere style of the historian. 

Bishop Westcott remarks of Macaulay’s antithetical style that it ‘bears much 
the same relation to prose that prose-rhyme does to verse; it is a help towards attain- 
ment of a second order; but to supreme excellence, it is a hindrance” (Cited by Roberts, 
Op. Cit., p. 267). Cf. Hunt, Principles of Written Discourse, p. 80. 


2 ANTITHESIS IN ATTIC ORATORS, ANTIPHON TO ISAEUS 


An attempt to classify the varieties of antithesis (ἀντικειμένη λέξις) 
is made by Aristotle in the following vexed passage (Rhet. III, 9, 1410 a): 
ἀντικειμένη δὲ Ev ἡ ἑκατέρῳ τῷ KWAW ἢ πρὸς ἐναντίῳ ἐναντίον σύγκειται ἢ 
ταὐτὸ ἐπέζευκται τοῖς ἐναντίοις, οἷον. (I append the first two examples) 
ἀμφοτέρους δ᾽ ὥνησαν, καὶ τοὺς ὑπομείναντας Kal τοὺς ἀκολουθήσαντας τοῖς 
μὲν γὰρ πλείω τῆς οἴκοι προσεκτήσαντο, τοῖς δ᾽ ἱκανὴν τὴν οἴκοι κατέλιπον. 
ἐναντία ὑπομόνη ἀκολόυθησις, ἱκανόν πλεῖον. ὥστε καὶ τοῖς χρημάτων δεο- 
μένοις καὶ τοῖς ἀπολαῦσαι βουλομένοις.5 ἀπόλαυσις κτήσει ἀντίκειται. 
There follow eight other illustrative quotations, all of them except the 
last being taken from Isocrates’s Panegyricus. 

What did Aristotle really mean to say in this passage? Spengel 
explains: “aut duo sunt contraria in utroque colo, ut in exemplo quod 
sequitur, vel ut καὶ τοὺς φρονίμους ἀτυχεῖν καὶ τοὺς ἄφρονας κατορθοῦν, in 
quibus πρὸς ἐναντίῳ ἐναντίον σύγκειται, aut contrariis 7dem verbum est com- 
mune, ut in secundo exemplo.!? Cope," apparently following Spengel, 
translates: “‘Either by balancing opposite by opposite in the two con- 
trasted members, or by uniting the two opposites, as it were, under the 
vinculum of a single word” (Italics mine). Jebb and Welldon translate 
the passage similarly, and the interpretation is followed by Belling.” 
The endeavor to correlate Aristotle’s illustrative examples with the state- 
ment, thus interpreted, has not been equally uniform nor adequately 
successful. Belling, Cope, and Welldon’ deviate from Spengel when 
they explain both varieties of antithesis mentioned in the statement by 
Aristotle’s first illustrative quotation, taking ὥνησαν of the first part as 
the word (ταὐτό) which is attached to the contraries, thus it corresponds 

7 Isoc. IV, 35-36, with slight alterations. 


8 Isoc. IV, 41; Aristotle strangely omits the word ἁρμόττειν from this quotation. 
It is a matter of small importance, however, that Aristotle does not quote verbatim 
in many of the examples. The quotations are substantially correct, the slight altera- 
tions or omissions not changing the meaning of Isocrates or affecting the value of Aris- 
totle’s illustrations. 

* As against Cope’s emendation of κτήσει to δεήσει (Arist. Rhet. [Sandys] Vol. 
ΠῚ p. 101), cf. Isoc. VII, 35: αἱ μὲν yap κτήσεις ἀσφαλεῖς ἦσαν, οἷσπερ κατὰ τὸ δίκαιον 
ὑπῆρχον, αἱ δὲ χρήσεις κοιναὶ πᾶσι τοῖς δεομένοις τῶν πολιτῶν, where χρήσεις cor- 
responds to ἀπόλαυσις in the above example. 

10 Arist. Ars. Rhet. 11, p. 398. 

" Introd. Arist. Rhet., p. 314; see also his note on the passage in the Rhetoric [Sandys] 
III, p. 101. 

De periodorum Antiphontearum symmetria, p. 28. 

12 Trans. Arist. Rhet., p. 258, note. 3. 


ANTITHESIS AS TREATED BY GREEK RHETORICIANS 3 


to the second variety; the second part of the quotation (τοῖς μέν---τοῖς 
δέ) is used to illustrate the first variety, where opposite is balanced by 
opposite in the contrasted members. 

Volkmann thinks that Aristotle, led by study of the period, probably 
meant to differentiate between antitheses whose two members are paral- 
lel independent sentences—as ὥστε τοὺς φρονίμους ἀτυχεῖν καὶ τοὺς ἄφρονας 
κατορθοῦν---ηὰ those whose members, expanding by virtue of ἃ common 
element previously (or subsequently) pointed out, together form one 
complete sentence, as after ὥνησαν in Aristotle’s first example.“ 

These explanations do not merely fail to adequately correlate the 
text as interpreted with the illustrative examples. Aristotle is made to 
confuse rather than to clarify, as is his wont, our idea of a rhetorical 
figure. The first is the only apposite example illustrating the feature 
of expansion mentioned by Volkmann, and it should normally explain 
the first rather than the second part of the definition. Moreover, 
Aristotle’s specific designation of the ἐναντία in the first two examples, 
and his mention of them at the close of the list (ravavria γνωριμώτατα) 
seem to argue a different emphasis. Again (cf. Belling, Cope, Welldon), 
it is assumed that Aristotle was so unscientific as to differentiate the two 
varieties of antithesis mentioned in this important definition by com- 
bining the examples without warning in the first illustrative quotation, 
and thereby also reversing the natural order of illustration. Observe 
that two serious objections preclude the alternative of dividing Aris- 
totle’s first example to meet the requirements of the definition: 1. The 
words following and directly governed by ὥνησαν constitute only one 
κῶλον: all the other examples contain the two which are required by the 
definition; 2. There is no adequate reason for supposing that Aristotle 
deviated from the natural and logical order of illustration. On the 
contrary, he obviously intended the first quotation as a whole to illus- 
trate the first variety of antithesis—é ἧ ἑκατέρῳ τῷ KwAw πρὸς ἐναντίῳ ἐναν- 
tlov σύγκειτα. After each of the first two quotations following the 
definition the opposites are designated: those illustrative of the first 
mentioned form of the figure, and found in the first example, are four: 
ὑπομόνη, ἀκολούθησις, ἱκανόν, πλεῖον. Clearly, then, the example proper be- 
gins with τοῖς μέν (ὑπομείνασι), κτὰ., and the previous clause (ἀμφοτέρους 
ὥνησαν, κτᾺ) was added merely to give the antithetic significance of 


14 Rhetorik, p. 485 f. 


+ ANTITHESIS IN ATTIC ORATORS, ANTIPHON TO ISAEUS 


τοῖς μὲν---τοῖς δέ. Every alternate example similarly contains four 
ἐναντία, corresponding to this interpretation. Thus far we are following 
Spengel where succeeding commentators have explained differently, and, 
we believe, erroneously. 


It is the second part of the definition which has caused the main 
difficulty: ἐν 7 ταὐτὸ ἐπέζευκται τοῖς ἐναντίοις. Here ταὐτό has been 
universally translated “the same word.” Aristotle is thus made to 
present a non-inclusive, inadequately illustrated type of antithesis, very 
unlike the first variety, which he so carefully explains with copious 
illustration. The disparity of the illustrative examples on this inter- 
pretation is baffling to the extreme. The fallacy of dividing the first 
example and taking ὥνησαν as the word (ταὐτό) has been pointed out. 
Only one of Aristotle’s ten illustrative quotations can be cited in favor 
of this interpretation, which is based on the narrower meaning of ταὐτό 
(idem verbum). Now a very satisfactory interpretation results when 
ταὐτό is employed in its broader and more flexible meaning—‘The 
same thing.” This meaning is more truly Aristotelian. Examples 
could be multiplied showing that the author of the Rhetoric meant by 
ταὐτό “the same thing’; he constantly employs the word in referring 
not merely to single words, but to expressions or statements which convey 
the same or virtually the same thought. 


16 The terms of an antithesis are not infrequently thus introduced in a preliminary 
statement; cf. Isoc. IV, 82: ὁμόιως γάρ ἐστι χαλεπὸν ἐπαινεῖν τοὺς ὑπερβεβληκότας Tas 
τῶν ἄλλων ἀρετὰς ὥσπερ τοὺς μηδὲν ἀγαθὸν πεποιηκότας" τοῖς μὲν yap οὐχ ὕπεισι πράξεις, 
πρὸς δὲ τοὺς οὐκ εἰσὶν ἁρμόττοντες λόγοι. Cf. also Isoc. I, 1; Ant. IV, δ 8; V, 73. 


16 Spengel fails to designate the word in the second example which gives the key to 
his interpretation; presumably it was the omitted word ἁρμόττειν, or the synonymous 
δεομένοις----βουλομένοις. In either case (whether the meaning be limited to a single 
word or extended to include a pair of synonymous words) the example is not paralleled 
by another of Aristotle’s illustrations of the figure. 

When Aristotle uses ταὐτό in referring to a single word, ὄνομα is unmistakably 
understood; cf. πτώσεις ταὐτοῦ (Rhet. 1410 a) which is both preceded and followed 
by τὸ αὐτὸ ὄνομα. And, indeed, the more usual, broader meaning of the term is found 
in this same section: ἔστιν δὲ ἅμα πάντα ἔχειν ταὐτό, καὶ ἀντίθεσιν εἶναι τὸ αὐτό Kal 
πάρισον καὶ ὁμοιουτέλευτον. 

The following passages, gleaned from the Rhetoric in close proximity to the passage 
in question, illustrate Aristotle’s use of the word. In view of the broad and flexible 
meaning which he attached to the word, the correlation of the examples with the defini- 
tion (see note 17) does not appear strained; cf. 1410 Ὁ: ποιοῦσιν μὲν οὖν καὶ αἱ τῶν 
ποιητῶν elxoves τὸ αὐτό. 


ANTITHESIS AS TREATED BY GREEK RHETORICIANS 5 


This meaning of the word applied to the passage in hand makes 
Aristotle’s meaning clear, and admirably correlates the examples. An- 
tithesis arises when “‘in each of the clauses opposite is juxtaposed to oppo- 
site or the same idea is attached to opposites.”” The four ἐναντία of 
the first variety bear the relation a:b::a!:b!. The two clauses of the 
second variety contain each a single ἐναντίον, bearing the relation 
a:x::al:x—x representing common clausal elements, which are either 
verbal synonyms or expressions of similar import. The first two ex- 
amples, then, in which the author takes the pains to point out the opposite 
concepts, respectively explain the twofold species of antithesis specified 
in the definition. In the list of examples which follows (καὶ ἔτι) it is 
not, of course, necessary that Aristotle should have adhered throughout 
to a regular alternating order of illustration. Such would, however, be 
the natural: and logical order, and it should be in the main assumed 
unless the contrary fact can be clearly demonstrated. It is an obvious 
fact that, beginning with the first, every second example contains four 
definite ἐναντία, corresponding to the first mentioned variety of an- 
tithesis. The presumption is accordingly in favor of taking the alternate 
examples as illustrative of the second variety. Excepting the last 
example, this is in fact the case. These quotations contain but two oppo- 
sites, one in each clause, the other clausal elements being common 
and expressing the same or similar ideas. Now the last example 
is the only quotation from a source outside Isocrates: καὶ ὃ eis Πειθόλαόν 
τις εἶπεν καὶ Λυκόφρονα ἐν τῷ δικαστηρίῳ, οὗτοι δ᾽ ὑμᾶς οἴκοι μὲν ὄντες 
ἐπώλουν, ἐλθόντες δ᾽ ὡς ὑμᾶς ἐώνηνται. The opposites are staying, going, 
buying, selling. This, therefore, which should normally explain the 
second variety illustrates the first. The breaking of the regular alter- 





1412a: ὥσπερ ᾿Αρχύτας ἔφη ταὐτὸν εἶναι διαιτητὴν Kai βωμόν᾽ ἐπ’ ἄμφω yap τὸ 
ἀδικούμενον καταφεύγει. ἢ εἴ τις φαίη ἄγκυραν καὶ κρεμάθραν τὸ αὐτὸ εἶναι. ἄμφω γὰρ 
ταὐτό τι, ἀλλὰ διαφέρει τῷ ἄνωθεν καὶ κάτωθεν. 

1412 b: τὸ αὐτὸ καὶ τὸ ᾿Αναξανδρίδου τὸ ἐπαινούμενον, “καλόν γ᾽ ἀποθανεῖν πρὶν 
θανάτου δρᾶν ἄξιον, ταὐτὸ γὰρ ἐστι τῷ εἰπεῖν ἄξιον γ᾽ ἀποθανεῖν μὴ ὄντα ἄξιον 
ἀποθανεῖν, κτλ. 

1418 a: καὶ ὃ ἔλεγεν Γοργίας, ὅτι οὐχ ὑπολείπει αὐτὸν ὁ λόγος, ταὐτό ἐστιν. Cf. also 
1362 Ὁ fin: οὐδὲν γὰρ κωλύει ἐνίοτε ταὐτὸ συμφέρειν τοῖς ἐναντίοις. 


6 ANTITHESIS IN ATTIC ORATORS, ANTIPHON TO ISAEUS 


nation may be accounted for by Aristotle’s desire to include this well- 
known quotation among his illustrations of antithesis.” 

This interpretation of Aristotle’s language and meaning is strikingly 
corroborated by a comparison of the remarks of his successors, who 
use the same terms in speaking of similar phenomena. τὸ αὐτὸ yap εἴρηται 
καὶ αὐδεὺ ἐναντίον is Demetrius’s remark (περὶ ἑρμ. 24) about the identical 
false antithesis (τόκα μέν... .. τόκα δέ) cited by Aristotle. Theophras- 
tus (preserved by Diony. De Lys. 14) says that antithesis arises ὅταν τῷ 
αὐτῷ τὰ ἐναντία, ἢ τῷ ἐναντίῳ Ta αὐτὰ ἢ τοῖς ἐναντίοις ἐναντία προσκατ- 
ηγορηθῇ : τοσαυταυχῶς γὰρ ἐγχωρεῖ συζευχθῆναι. The statement is iden- 
tical with that of his predecessor, except that ὅταν τῷ αὐτῷ τὰ ἐναντία 
presents an additional species of antithesis—an expansion of Aristotle’s 
second variety. Theophrastus’s meaning would be unintelligible were 


17 There can be no doubt, I think, regarding the quotations which explain the 
first variety. I take up the alternate examples, beginning with the second, which 
seem to me to explain the second variety of antithesis (adding in parenthesis the 
original of Isocrates where it differs from the quotation). Cf. note 16. 

(1) ὥστε καὶ τοῖς χρημάτων δεομένοις καὶ τοῖς ἀπολαῦσαι βουλομένοις (Isoc. IV, 41: 
ὥστε καὶ τοῖς χρημάτων δεομένοις καὶ τοῖς ἀπολαῦσαι τῶν ὑπαρχόντων ἐπιθυμοῦσιν ἀμφοτέρ- 
ows ἁρμόττειν). The opposites, according to Aristotle, are the ideas of enjoyment and 
of acquirement (ἀπόλαυσις, κτῆσις); the common element (ταὐτό) is, possibly, the 
idea of wanting, which is contained in both members (δεομένοις, βουλομένοις [ἐπιθυμοῦσιν]) ; 
cf. Isoc. VII, 25: ὥστε χαλεπώτερον ἦν ἐν ἐκείνοις τοῖς χρόνοις ἑυρεῖν τοὺς βουλομένους 
ἄρχειν ἤ νῦν τοὺς μηδὲν δεομένους. ᾿ 

An alternative explanation is to regard the omitted word ἁρμόττειν as the common 
element; this was probably what Spengel meant by idem verbum (although he, like 
Aristotle, failed to designate the word). One is loth to believe Aristotle would have 
omitted a word so important to his main illustration. 

(2) εὐθὺς μὲν τῶν ἀριστείων ἠξιώθησαν, ob πολὺ δὲ ὕστερον THY ἀρχὴν τῆς θαλάττης 
ἔλαβον (Isoc. ΙΝ, 72). The opposites are εὐθύς and ὕστερον; the other clausal elements 
are ταὐτό. The context makes it clear that Isocrates is trying to show that similar 
and undisputed honor was conferred upon the Athenian forebears in earlier and later 
times. 

(3) (ἡγούμενοι δεινὸν) φύσει πολίτας ὄντας νόμῳ THs πόλεως στερεῖσθαι (Isoc. IV, 
105). The common idea is that of citizenship (πολίτας, πόλεως). For the φύσις--- 
νόμος antithesis cf. Lys. XXXI, 6; Isoc. IX, 54. 

(4) (αἰσχρὸν ἀξιοῦν) ἰδίᾳ μὲν τοῖς βαρβάροις οἰκέταις χρῆσθαι, κοινῇ δὲ πολλοὺς 
τῶν συμμάχων περιορᾶν (αὐτοῖς) δουλεύοντας (Isoc. IV, 181). By the use of ἴδιος--- 
κοινός, Isocrates shows the discrepancy between the attitude of the Athenians 
toward the barbarians in private affairs and that in public: ‘‘We use the barbarians 
as servants in private; in public we allow our allies to be in a state of servitude to 
them.” The idea of serving is common to both members of the antithesis. For the 
antithesis with περιορᾶν, cf. Andoc. I, 53. 


ANITTHESIS AS TREATED BY GREEK RHETORICIANS 7 


τῷ αὐτῷ here taken in the narrower sense (idem verbum). Again, in 
ἢ τῷ ἐναντίῳ τὰ αὐτὰ Aristotle’s second variety (ἐν 7 ἑκατέρῳ τῷ κώλῳ 
ταὐτὸ ἐπέζευκται τοῖς ἐναντίοις) is undoubtedly reflected. Here, too, τὰ αὐτά 
can only mean “similar statements.” Theophrastus says that an- 
tithesis arises whenever opposite things are predicated about that which 
is of the same character (synonyms or similar things),'® or similar things 
about that which is of an opposite character (antonyms or opposite 
things), or when opposite things are predicated about opposite things. 

Aristotle concludes his treatment of antithesis and the kindred 
figures!® with a significant allusion to False Antithesis (Rhet. III, 9, 
1410 b): εἰσὶν δὲ καὶ ψευδεῖς ἀντιθέσεις, οἷον καὶ ᾿Επίχαρμος ἐποίει ‘téxa 
μὲν ἐν τήνων ἔγὼν ἦν, τόκα δὲ παρὰ τήνοις ἔγών᾿. Demetrius explains more 
fully (περὶ ἑρμ. 24): "Ἔστι δὲ κῶλα, ἅ μὴ ἀντικείμενα ἐμφαίνει τινὰ ἀντί- 
θεσιν διὰ τὸ τῷ σχήματι ἀντιθέτοις γεγράφθαι, καθάπερ τὸ Tap’ ᾿Επιχάρμῳ 
τῷ ποιητῇ πεπαιγμένον, ὅτι ἱτόκα μὲν ἐν τήνοις ἔγὼν ἦν, τόκα δὲ παρὰ 
τήνοις ἔγων᾽. τὸ αὐτὸ μὲν γὰρ εἴρηται καὶ οὐδὲν ἐναντίον. Whether or not 
the Epicharmus passage is in fact a false antithesis is perhaps an open 
question.” At any rate Aristotle and Demetrius took it for such, and 
in the light of their remarks we infer that a false antithesis is an appar- 
ent opposition of words, which does not express a real opposition of 
thought.” 


Cf. Isoc. I, 43: τὸ μὲν γὰρ τελευτῆσαι πάντων ἡ πεπρωμένη κατέκρινε, TO δὲ 
καλῶς ἀποθανεῖν ἴδιον τοῖς σπουδαίοις ἡ φύσις ἀπένειμεν (an implied ἴδιος-κοινός an- 
tithesis); also, Ant. IV, y 4: Ἔστι δὲ ἡ μὲν ἀτυχία τοῦ πατάξαντος, ἡ δὲ συμφορὰ Tow 
παθόντος. 

19 The order of figures discussed is Antithesis, Parison, Paromoion, False Antithesis. 
He adduces no common name for the group; it is a significant fact that Gorgias’s name 
is not mentioned. Barczat says apropos the arrangement (p. 14): Quod dispositionis 
vitium cum ne redactor quidem neglecturus fuerit, quo modo res explicanda sit, non 
video, nisi haec singula addimenta paulatim ex adnotionibus adjuncta esse dicamus. 

20 Epicharmus, Frag. 124 (147 Kaibel). Blass (Ait. Bered. T, 18), following Ahrens 
(Dial. Aeol., pp. 268, 271) maintains that Aristotle and Demetrius misunderstood the 
passage; that ἐν τήνοις---παρὰ τήνοις is not a false antithesis because the pronouns 
refer to different parties (“‘dieser-jener”). Lorenz (Epicharm., p. 273) supports the 
ancient view. 

1 “False” antithesis is used by writers in one or more of the following senses: to 
indicate those cases 1. Where words of similar meaning but different form in corres- 
ponding clausal positions imply an antithesis of thought which they do not really 
express, aS ἐν THhvols—arapa τήνοις in the above example (according to Aristotle and 
Demetrius); cf. ἡγοῦντο---ἐποιοῦντο (Lys. XII, 7); after this manner Robertson (p. 15) 
cites Herodot. VII, 8: οὔτε τινὰ πόλιν ἀνδρῶν οὐδεμίαν οὔτε ἔθνος οὐδὲν ἀνθρώπων 


ὃ ANTITHESIS IN ATTIC ORATORS, ANTIPHON ΤΟ ISAEUS 


Anaximenes defines antithesis as follows (I. 212): 3333 ’AvriBerov μὲν 
οὖν ἐστιν τὸ ἐναντίαν τὴν ὀνομασίαν ἅμα καὶ τὴν δύναμιν τοῖς ἀντικειμένοις 
ἔχον, ἤ τὸ ἕτερον τούτων" τοῖς μὲν οὖν ὀνόμασιν εἴη ἂν ἐναντίον ἅμα καὶ τῇ 
δυνάμει τόδε᾽ ‘ov γὰρ δίκαιον τοῦτον μὲν τὰ ἐμὰ ἔχοντα πλουτεῖν, ἐμὲ 
δὲ τὰ ὄντα προϊέμενον οὕτω πτωχεύειν.᾽ τοῖς δ᾽ ὀνόμασι μόνοις᾽ διδότω 
yap ὁ πλούσιος καὶ εὐδαίμων τῷ πένητι καὶ ἐνδεεῖ. τῇ δὲ δυνάμει" ᾿ἔγὼ 
μὲν τοῦτον νοσοῦντα ἐθεράπευσα, οὗτος δ᾽ ἐμοὶ μεγίστων κακῶν αἴτιος γέγονεν᾽" 
ἐνταῦθα μὲν γὰρ τὰ ὀνόματα οὐκ ἐναντία, αἱ δὲ πράξεις ἐναντίαι. κἀλ- 
λιστον μὲν οὖν εἴη ἂν τὸ κατ᾽ ἀμφότερα ἀντίθετον καὶ κατὰ τὴν δύναμιν καὶ 
κατὰ τὴν ὀνομασίαν. ἔστι δὲ καὶ τὰ λοιπὰ δύο ἀντίθετα. 

This threefold division of antithesis into that of Word (κατ᾽ ὄνομα), 
Thought (κατὰ δύναμιν), and that combining both word and thought (κατ᾽ 
ἀμφότερα) which makes its initial appearance here, finds expression in the 
later rhetoricians, and is taken by modern writers as the typical ancient 
classification. The merits of such a classification can best be dis- 
cussed when the statements of the other rhetoricians have been exam- 
ined. It is to be noticed that Anaximenes while indicating the existence 





ὑπολείπεσθαι as an example of false antithesis (but is there not clearly a real distinc- 
tion intended between the terms used here?); 2. Where the words are antithetic in 
form (and hence, of course, in meaning), but the context does not admit of the corre- 
sponding antithesis of thought, as that between ἔργῳ---λόγῳ in Thucy. VII, 69, 2: 
(—vouicas) πάντα ἔργῳ ἔτι σφίσιν ἐνδεᾶ εἶναι καὶ λόγῳ αὐτοῖς οὕπω ἱκανὰ εἰρῆσθαι ; cf. 
Mueller, O., Gr. Lit. 115, (2nd Ed., Vol. 11., p. 170, note); 3. Where the phenomena 
contrasted do not admit of antithesis (cf. Wyse on Isaeus II, 24, etc.). 

Although noting instances falling under (1), I have restricted my use of the term 
“false” antithesis to the second meaning. Here we may assume that propriety 
suggested the use of one of a common pair of antithetic terms and the other followed 
by the law of association. Instances of this character seem less questionable than 
those under (1), where the writer may have intended to make the distinction suggested 
by the word forms, or have purposely varied them to avoid repetition, or to form homo- 


eoteleuton; cf. note. 48, p. 39. Certainly, instances in Isocrates which might be classed _ 


under (1) are not false antitheses, else the author made a virtue of writing such 
(cf. note 97, p. 56). 
Cases falling under (3) I have mentioned under Artificial or Defective antitheses. 


33 Roman numerals are used after the names of the Greek Rhetoricians to refer to 
the volumes of Spengel’s Rhetores Graeci without further designation. 

33 The order of precedence between Aristotle and Anaximenes has been a disputed 
question. I am inclined to believe with Barczat (p. 22) that Anaximenes brought out 
his Rhetoric independently of Aristotle, at about the same time (cir. 340 B. C.), or a 
little later. It is likely that both had recourse to the same source,which was probably 
the lost τέχνη of Isocrates. See Barczat, pp. 18, 19. 





ANTITHESIS AS TREATED BY GREEK RHETORICIANS 9 


of the other types gives preference to that which combines both word 
and thought. Indeed, so far as Anaximenes is concerned, it seems 
probable that his terminology has been pressed by later writers at the 
expense of the meaning he intended to convey. The examples he ad- 
duces are thoroughly representative of the main types of antithesis in the 
Attic Orators. If we take these as authoritative, and assume that he 
employed a faulty terminology, Anaximenes meant to distinguish 
between more or less definite clausal antitheses (i. e., those where the 
members have distinct clausal form) and those occurring between words 
which lie within a single clause. So comprehensive a category would 
be most nearly adequate for the varieties of antithesis found in the 
orators and elsewhere. 


Demetrius, second successor of Aristotle in the Academy, adopts 
many of the examples cited by his great predecessor, but uses the ter- 
minology of Anaximenes. Like Aristotle, he discusses the figure under 
the head of periodology: Γίνονται δὲ καὶ ἐξ ἀντικειμένων κώλων περίοδοι, 
ἀντικειμένων δὲ ἤτοι τοῖς πράγμασιν, οἷον πλέων μὲν διὰ τῆς ἠπείρου, πεζεύων 
δὲ διὰ τῆς θαλάσσης᾽ [Isoc. IV, 89] ἢ ἀμφοτέροις, τῇ τε λέξει καὶ τοῖς πράγ- 
μασιν, ὥσπερ ἡ αὐτὴ περίοδος code ἔχει (περὶ épu. 22); he continues (23): 
κατὰ δὲ ὀνόματα μόνον ἀντικείμενα κῶλα τοιάδε ἐστίν, οἷον ὡς ὁ τὴν Ἑλένην 
παραβαλὼν τῷ Ἡρακλεῖ φησιν, ὅτι ἱτῷ μὲν ἐπίπονον καὶ πολυκίνδυνον τὸν 
βίον ἐποίησεν, τῆς δὲ περίβλεπτον καὶ περιμάχητον τὴν φύσιν κατέστησεν᾽ 
[Isoc. X, 17], ἀντίκειται γὰρ ἄρθρον ἄρθρῳ, καὶ σύνδεσμος συνδέσμῳ, ὅμοια 
ὁμοίοις, καὶ τἄλλα δὲ κατὰ τὸν αὐτὸν τρόπον, τῷ μὲν ᾿ἐπόιησεν᾽ τὸ ἱκατέστησεν᾽ 
τῷ δὲ 'πολυκίνδυνον᾽ τὸ ἱπεριμάχητον᾽ καὶ ὅλως ἕν πρὸς ἕν, ὅμοιον Tap’ ὅμοιον, 
ἡ ἀνταπόδοσις. He then enlarges upon the false antithesis mentioned 
by Aristotle. 


Demetrius thus endeavors to revise Aristotle’s treatment of the figure 
in the light of Anaximenes’ doctrine of a Word and Thought antithesis. 
The terminology is altered enough to show the model clearly:rots πράγ- 
μασιν is substituted for τῇ δυνάμει, (Cf. Anaximenes’s use of πράξεις), 
and the terms τῇ λέξει and κατ᾽ ὄνομα (Cf. Tiberius, III, 67) are identi- 
fied. It is a significant fact that he fails to produce distinct examples 
for antithesis τοῖς πράγμασιν and that τῇ λέξει Kal τοῖς πράγμασιν. The 
antithesis in Word Only is clearly defined, but poorly illustrated, the 
opposed terms in the example being contrasted without being properly 
antithetical. 


10 ANTITHESIS IN ATTIC ORATORS, ANTIPHON TO ISAEUS 


Of the later rhetoricians, Alexander Numenius is thought to be the 
foremost: to him Tiberius had recourse, and from him most of the 
others copied their rhetorical statements more or less directly.“ Alex- 
ander (III, 36) specifies three kinds of antithesis: the first corresponding 
to the κατ᾽ ὄνομα variety of Anaximenes, the two latter being varieties 
of the antithesis of Thought. They occur 1. Whenever words of oppo- 
site import are employed (ὅταν τὰ ἀντικείμενα ὀνόματα ἀναλαμβάνωμεν), 
as ἱ'μᾶλλον γὰρ τιμῶσιν αἱ πόλεις τῶν ἀδίκως πλουτούντων τοὺς δικαίως πεν- 
ομένους᾽, and ᾿ἐπιλούουσιν ἐν θερμοῖς ὕδασι ψυχροὺς ἄνδρας.᾽ 2. Whenever 
the same terms are employed (negatively) in the second member of a 
clausal antithesis (ὅταν αὐτὰ στρέφηται τὰ ὀνόματα), as ‘od μὲν yap ἔλαβες, 
ὦ Δημάδη, δῶρα παρὰ φιλίππου, ἔγὼ δὲ οὐκ ἔλαβον, καὶ προέπινες αὐτῷ 
κατὰ τῆς πόλεως εὐωχούμενος, ἔγὼ δ᾽ οὐ συνέπινον᾽. 3. Whenever we speak 
of opposite or different things in terms that are not explicitly antithetic 
(ὅταν μὴ πάντως τοῖς ἀντικειμένοις ὀνόμασιν φράζωμεν, ἀντικείμενα μέντοι ἢ 
διαφέροντα πράγματα λαμβάνωμεν), as ᾿ἐδίδασκες γράμματα, ἔγὼ δὲ ἐφοίτουν" 
ἐτέλεις, ἔγὼ δὲ ἐτελούμην᾽ ἐτριταγωνίστεις, ἔγὼ δ᾽ ἐθεώρουν: ἔγγραμάτευες, 
ἔγὼ δ᾽ ἐκκλησίαζον" ἐξέπιπτες, ἔγὼ δ᾽ ἐσύριττον᾽ (Demosth. De Cor., 
XVIII, 265.) 

The second variety seems to be original with Alexander, but is re- 
flected by other rhetoricians of the same group. Zonaius (III, 169), 
Anonymous (III, 186), and Herodian (III, 96) employ the same ex- 
amples for the first two varieties mentioned by Alexander; the second 
variety is more accurately designated by them as an antithesis of Affr- 
mation and Denial (ὅταν ἀντιδιαστέλληται κατάφασις ἀποφάσει). No third 
form of antithesis is mentioned. 


Tiberius (III, 67 and 78) speaks of two kinds of antithesis: τὸ κατὰ 
διάνοιαν and τὸ τῆς λέξεως. The first type is not explained except to say 
that it is common in Demosthenes, and was inveighed against by Aes- 
chines.” 


% Cf. Barczat, p. 34. 


35 ἐπιβεβουλευμένοις καὶ κακοήθεσι τούτοις ἀντιθέτοις (Aeschin. II, 4), on which the 
Scholiast remarks rots ἐξ ἀντικειμένοις Aeyouévors’ ἀντίθετα yap λέγουσι τὰ ἐν περιόδῳ 
διπλῇ ἐξ ἀντικειμένων, οἷον ἱτοὺς φίλους μὲν λυπῶν, τοὺς δ᾽ ἐχθροὺς εὐεργετῶν"᾽ ἔστι γὰρ 
τοῦτο δίκωλον ἀντικείμενον" ἡδονὴν δ᾽ ἔχει τὸ ἀντίθετον σχῆμα, οἷον (quoting the familiar 
passage of Demosthenes: σὺ μὲν γὰρ ἔλαβες, etc.). This type of antithesis seems 
to correspond closely to the κατὰ λέξιν variety mentioned in III, 78, and to the last 
mentioned variety of Alexander (III, 36). Cf. Aeschin. III, 168, 253. 


ANTITHESIS AS TREATED BY GREEK RHETORICIANS ital 


Of the second variety he says (III, 78): τὸ δὲ τῆς λέξεως διχῶς γίνεται, 
ἢ κατὰ κῶλον, ἢ κατὰ λέξιν. κατὰ κῶλον μὲν, ‘Tapa Tas THY χορηγῶν 
δαπάνας μικρὸν ἡμέρας μέρος ἡ χάρις τοῖς θεωμένοις ἐστί, παρὰ δὲ τὰς εἰς 
τὸν πόλεμον παρασκευῶν ἀφθονίας πάντα τὸν χρόνον ἡ σωτηρία πάσῃ τῇ 
πόλει᾽ ἀντίκειται γὰρ τοῖς κώλοις ἡ ἑρμηνεία. τὸ δὲ κατὰ λέξιν ᾿ἐδίδασκες 
γράμματα, ἔγὼ δ᾽ ἐφοίτων, κτλ᾽ (Dem. De Cor. 265). The chief feature 
of this classification is the κατὰ κῶλον variety—a distinct advance in 
terminology. The κατὰ λέξιν reflects the third type mentioned by Alex- 
ander. For the terms the writer is probably indebted to Aristotle and 
Demetrius. 

The last Greek rhetorician to be considered is Hermogenes. In his 
principal statement (II, 236) this writer defines antithesis as ἃ σχῆμα 
λόγου διπλασίαζον τὸν ὑποκείμενον νοῦν. This doubling of the expression 
is brought about by contrasting the actual with the hypothetical form: 
the first member of the antithesis being a present contrary to fact con- 
dition, the second being introduced by ἐπεὶ δὲ. The antithetical form 
of ἐπειδὴ ἡμέρα ἐστι, δεῖ ποιῆσαι τὸδε is this: εἰ μὲν yap μὴ ἦν ἡμέρα, ἀλλὰ 
νύξ, ἴσως ἐχρῆν μὴ ποιεῖν, ἐπεὶ δέ ἐστιν ἡμέρα, ποιῆσαι προσῆκεν. He adduces 
several examples to show the unique power of the figure in condensing 
disconnected sentences into a periodic whole.?’ At the close he warns 
us that he is speaking of rhetorical antithesis (περὶ ῥητορικοῦ ἀντιθέτου), 
ἐπεὶ of φιλόσοφοι ἐναντίον καὶ ἀντίθετον ov διαιροῦσι, Tap’ ἡμῖν δὲ TO ἀντίθετον 
σχῆμά ἐστι τοῦ λόγου" τὸ δὲ ἐναντίον δριμύτης νοήματος ἀπὸ τῆς ἐργασίας 
λαμβανομένη οἷον ‘ot δὴ θαυμαστόν ἐστιν, εἰ στρατευόμενος ἐκεῖνος καὶ παρὼν 
ἐφ᾽ ἅπασι καὶ μηδένα καιρὸν μηδ᾽ ὥραν παραλείπων ἡμῶν μελλόντων καὶ 
ψηφιζομένων καὶ πυνθανομένων περιγίγνεται᾽ [Demosth. II, 23]. The sen- 
tence is then recast in the antithetical form previously indicated: ‘ei μὲν 
Yap μήτε πονῶν μήτε παρὼν τοῖς πράγμασι περιεγίνετο ἡμῶν, θαυμαστὸν ἦν; 
and he remarks that whereas antithesis takes the form of a contrary 
to fact condition (εἰ μὲν yap ἐγίνετο, 6 ἐγίγνετο), τὸ δὲ ἐναντίον ἀναστρέφει 
τὸ πρᾶγμα ἀπὸ τῶν πασχόντων εἰς τοὺς δρῶντας. This feature of expression 
is not rhetorical antithesis then, we infer, because in it the thought (τὸ 
mpayua) is transferred from the subject to the object (ἀπὸ τῶν πασχόντων 
eis τοὺς δρῶντας), and hence does not come within what he conceives to 
be the conventional mode for the figure.”* 


35 Adopting Belling’s suggested emendation (p. 30) for σχῆμα λόγος διπλασιάζων. 

27 Cf. similarly Anonymous (III, 12). The form of expression is common in the 
orators; see below, note 27, page 32. 

38 τὸ ἐναντίον seems to be merely another form of intra-clausal antithesis; see 
below, p. 30. 


12 ANTITHESIS IN ATTIC ORATORS, ANTIPHON ΤΟ ISAEUS 


In conclusion, we notice that the later rhetoricians were able, by 
resorting directly to the orators, particularly Demosthenes, to produce 
certain new forms of antithesis. Aristotle, Anaximenes, Demetrius and 
Theophrastus confined the figure within the limits of a single clause, or 
of two mutually antithetic μέν---δέ clauses. With the later rhetoricians 
the old forms were recognized, but the conception of antithesis had grown 
to include various forms of extended clausal contrast (with or without 
antithetic words), and the balanced periodic writing so common in 
Aeschines and Demosthenes. The development of this latter type of 
antithesis among the rhetoricians may not improbably have been the 
outgrowth of Anaximenes’s antithesis of Thought Only. The incubus 
of a Word and Thought classification was not to be entirely discarded. 
Or perhaps the latter nomenclature was an effort to revise and improve 
that of Anaximenes to meet the demands of an enlarged conception of 
the figure, as Theophrastus and Demetrius had revised that of Aristotle. 
There were only two basic and radically different classifications in anti- 
quity: that of Aristotle and Theophrastus, and that of Anaximenes. 
The trend of the one was toward a structural analysis of what may be 
termed the duplex-clausal antithesis; the other, under the misleading 
terminology of the Word and Thought category, attempted to dis- 
tinguish between clausal and intra-clausal antithesis, and added the 
antithesis of Thought Only. 

The inadequacy of Anaximenes’s category of Word, Word and 
Thought, and Thought Only, to express real distinctions was observed 
both in Anaximenes and in Demetrius. Difficulty will always be met 
in the attempt to use it with discrimination.*® The whole force of a 
clausal antithesis often lies in a single altered word of otherwise corre- 
sponding clauses. Two such clauses are antithetical in thought (how 
can we say otherwise?); yet they are so by dint of only a single pair 
of antithetic words.®° If these be classified as antitheses in Word Only, 
at what point by the addition of antithetic words in the respective clauses 


29 Jebb (Attic Orators, ΤΙ, p. 81) speaking of antithesis in Isocrates, follows Anaxime- 
nes directly; cf. Belling, p. 28, Vogel, In Dinarchum, p. 59 ff., and Lincke, De Elocut. 
Isaei, p. 50 ff. Volkmann, after discussing the various classifications of the Greek 
and Roman writers, concludes with the statement that as a real rhetorical figure only 
those antitheses can be considered which combine an opposition of both word and 
thought (p. 487). Compare Robertson, p. 14. 


30 This is the very common type of antithesis specified in the second part of Aris- 
totle’s definition of the figure; see the illustrative examples (note 17). 


ANTITHESIS AS TREATED BY GREEK RHETORICIANS 13 


do they pass into the category of Word and Thought? The underlying 
fallacy is evident. There is no distinction between word and thought: 
a word is the embodiment and expression of thought.** Nor can we 
with impunity dissociate the thought element as expressed in verb, 
noun, or attributive, and classify an antithesis as one of Word or of 
Thought. In “Let the rich give to the poor,” there is not only a real 
opposition of thought between rich and poor but the idea of giving on 
the part of the rich necessarily implies its mental counterpart—that of 
receiving on the part of the poor. It is thus a virtual active-passive 
antithesis (Cf. δράω--πάσχω) so inseparably in all such cases are words 
and ideas bound up together. Again, any contrast deserving the name 
of antithesis contains either a direct or implied opposition of words. 
In the sentence of Anaximenes, ἔγὼ μὲν τοῦτον νοσοῦντα ἐθεράπευσα, οὗτος 
δ᾽ ἐμοὶ μεγίστων κακῶν αἴτιος γέγονεν, there lies the implied verbal contrast: 
“T did him good, but he did me οὐ]. The antithesis remains the same 
whether it is merely implied in the structure of the sentence or stated 
explicitly. Every case of real antithesis, resolved into its elements, 
contains an opposition of both word and thought.” 

We revert to Aristotle’s classification (adopting the amendment of 
Theophrastus). It is decidedly superior to that of Anaximenes in that 
it obviates the error of the arbitrary terminology of the latter. In so 
far as it classifies antitheses by the number of ἐναντία or opposite words 


3! Two antithetic words which fail to convey the corresponding antithetic thought 
constitute a false antithesis. See above, note 21. Cf. Thorndyke, The Elements of 
Rhetoric and Composition, p. 267: Antithesis is “‘the setting over against each other 
of contrasted ideas by means of contrasted words.” 


% My contention is that behind really antithetic thought there always lurk explic- 
itly antithetic words. In such cases as the above example, it is hard to draw the line 
between a mere contrast, and the rhetorical figure antithesis. I should be inclined 
to reject the example cited by Anaximenes as antithesis on the ground that it fails to 
show the rhetorical design requisite for a figure of speech (cf. the definitions given by 
Quintilian and Tiberius, above, p. 1, note 1. In selecting antitheses from the orators, 
I have almost invariably required as evidence of the figure the presence in the same 
period of at least a single pair of explicitly antithetic words—the only exceptions being 
when, in a formal contrast, one of a common pair of antithetic terms is found and 
the other implied (as ἴδιος----κοινός in Ant. V, 79, and Isoc. I, 43). When certain 
parts of an antithesis are stated only by implication, I have called it Partly Implied 
(see instances below). 

Cf. Genung, Working Principles of Rhetoric, p. 272: “The various phases under 
which it (antithesis) appears rise largely from the varying proportions in which the 
more inner contrast of thought or emotion supplant the outward expression.” 


14 ANTITHESIS IN ATTIC ORATORS, ANTIPHON ΤΟ ISAEUS 


which they contain, it can be little improved upon. In one respect it 
fails to meet the requirements: it includes only those antitheses wherein 
the antithetic words occur in separate clauses. Neither Aristotle nor 
Theophrastus seems to give place for an intra-clausal antithesis such as 
Anaximenes erroneously termed κατ᾽ ὄνομα. That this large class of 
antitheses in Isocrates and, in fact, in all the orators is designedly anti- 
thetical cannot be doubted. 

A figure of speech so common and multiform as antithesis must needs 
have its forms to a certain extent classified. In view of the above facts 
it is proposed to discuss Antithesis in the Attic Orators broadly under 
two heads: Clausal and Intra-clausal—endeavoring to express dis- 
tinctions solely in grammatical terms and terms of structural relations. 
It is not the purpose to present or follow an exhaustive category of classi- 
fication. The object is rather to study antithesis in relation to, and as a 
feature of, the author’s literary style as a whole. 

So much for the contributions of the Greek rhetoricians to the sub- 
ject, and our own method of procedure. Before entering upon the main 
field of study, a brief historical résumé of the figure will be given, and 
instances of its occurrence in literature before the Attic Orators. 


II. ANTITHESIS BEFORE THE ATTIC ORATORS 


Invention of the “‘Gorgianic”’ figures. In an earlier chapter we referred 
to the antithetic feature in Hebrew literature, and indicated the grounds 
of our belief that antithesis marks a state of linguistic development, the 
origin of which cannot be reasonably attributed to any one person or 
geographical section. In Greek literature Gorgias’s name has been so 
intimately connected with the figures of parallelism that he has sometimes 
been called their inventor. This opinion rests on more or less vague 
general statements of Diodorus (XII, 53, 2), Suidas, Cicero,! and Dio- 
nysius of Halicarnassus.2_ The remarks of Diodorus (πρῶτος---ἐχρήσατο), 
and Cicero (primus invenit), are found in close proximity to statements 
regarding the excessive use which Gorgias made of antithesis and the 
kindred figures, and we may assume with reason that their chief signi- 
ficance is that Gorgias was the first to employ these figures extensively, 
and possibly the first to give a treatment of them in his τέχνη. Cer- 
tainly, he did not do more than formulate principles for the use of a 
feature of expression which was already current. This would account 
for the figures being called ‘“Gorgianic”’ (τὰς τοῦ Γοργίου, σχήματα 
Topyveta). Dionysius acknowledges Timaeus as the authority 
for his statements, and it is likely that Diodorus followed the same 
source. Now, Suidas says that Philiscus, pupil of Isocrates, was the 
tutor of Timaeus; and Isocrates’s intimate relations with Gorgias are 
well known. The tradition of the so-called ‘‘Gorgianic” figures is thus 
probably accounted for in large measure.‘ It is significant that Aris- 


1Cic. Orat. LII, 175: Nam, ut paulo ante dixi, paria paribus adjuncta et similiter 
definita itemque contrariis relata contraria. Gorgias primus invenit, sed eis est usus 
intemperantius. Quintilian follows this (IX, 3, 74). 

2 Dionysius speaks with indignant criticism of Thucydides’ use of antitheses, 
parisa, homoeoteleuta, ἐν als ἐπλεόνασε Γοργίας ὁ Λεοντῖνος καὶ οἱ περὶ Πῶλον καὶ Λυκύμνιον 
καὶ πολλοὶ ἄλλοι τῶν κατ᾽ αὐτὸν ἀκμασάντων (Ep. II, ad 4. 2). Cf. De Lys. 3, p. 458 
fin., De Thucy. 24, p. 869. 

3 Cf. Suidas (s. v. Gorgias): οὗτος πρῶτος τῷ ‘pnropix@ εἴδει τῆς παιδείας δύναμίν 
τε φραστικὴν Kal τέχνην ἔδωκε, τροπαῖς τε καὶ μεταφοραῖς καὶ ἀλληγορίαις καὶ ὑπαλλαγαῖς 
καὶ καταχρήσεσι καὶ ὑπερβάσεσι καὶ ἀναδιπλώσεσι καὶ ἐπαναλήψεσι καὶ ἀποστροφαῖς 
καὶ παρισώσεσιν ἐχρήσατο, who mentions a number of figures without making Gorgias 
responsible for their invention fer se. 

‘ For an account of the tradition of the Gorgianic figures and the ancient sources, 
see Barczat, pp. 1-12, whom I have followed. Cf. also Nieschke, De Thucy., p. 32. 


16 ANTITHESIS IN ATTIC ORATORS, ANTIPHON TO ISAEUS 


totle, who several times makes mention of Gorgias, nowhere connects 
his name with the invention of these figures. 

Certain it is that antithesis was used in poetry before the time of 
Gorgias. Nor is evidence lacking that it was employed in prose. The 
feature of style occurs in Herodotus. Whether or not Antiphon’s 
Tetralogies antedate Gorgias’s visit to Athens, at any rate so close a 
contemporary as Antiphon would not be likely to be indebted to Gorgias 
for so well-developed a feature of his style.® Diels® finds unmistakable 
traces of antithesis in Empedocles, while Norden’ traces its origin to 
Heraclitus. These writers undoubtedly employed the figure; that either 
of them was the inventor of antithesis seems improbable and destitute 
of proof. Nieschke has conclusively shown traces of antithesis in 
Homer, Hesiod, and in Herodotus. It is known that Gorgias and 
Herodotus were both debtors to the prolific source and fount of inspira- 
tion with which Greek education and letters were so thoroughly satur- 
ated—Homer. 

That antithesis was one of the earliest modes of expressing thought; 
that it was indigenous among Attic writers; that it remained an effective 
form of literary expression throughout the best period of Greek litera- 
ture; but that in the hands of artificial writers it was abused, and among 
later writers was partly abandoned in favor of the more subtle Figures 


5 Cf. Becker, p. 10, followed by Belling, p. 62. 


6 “Gorgias und Empedocles” in Sitz. d. Berl. Ak., 1884, p. 343. Cf. Blass, Ait. 
Bered. I, 17, 2; 66, 5. 


7 Kunstprosa I, p. 18 ff. Cf. Emped. 67 f.: ἄλλοτε μὲν φιλότητι συνερχόμεν᾽ εἰς 
ἕν ἅπαντα ἄλλοτε δ᾽ αὖ dix’ ἕκαστα φορεύμενα Nelxeos ἔχθει (61 f.) τὸτε μὲν γὰρ ἕν 
ἠυξήθη μόνον εἶναι ἐκ πλεόνων τότε δ᾽ αὖ διέφυ πλέονα ἐξ ἑνὸς εἶναι. See also Heraclitus, 
περὶ duo. (Bywater), (68): τοῦ βίου οὔνομα βίος, ἔργον θάνατος. (39): τὰ ψυχρὰ 
θέρεται, θερμὸν ψύχεται: ὑγρὸν αὐαίνεται, καρφαλέον νοτίζεται. (III): πολλοὶ κακοΐ, 
ὀλίγοι δὲ ἀγαθόι. 


85 Barczat (p. 10) cites C. I. A. 1 (456 B. C. according to Kirchoff): τὰ μὲν ἀκούσια 
ἁπλῃ---τὰ δὲ ἑκούσια διπλῇ. 


* De Thucy. Homeri Imitatore et Antiphontos Discipulo, p. 68: Haec (schemata) 
de industria quaesita poetae quidem elegiaci ut Solon et Theognis Homeri et Hesiodi 
ingenium secuti praecipue in gnomis sive sententiis videntur adhibuisse, in quibus 
hanc dicendi formam quasi nasci coepisse aut interavisse equidem puto. 


ANTITHESIS BEFORE THE ATTIC ORATORS 17 


of Thought, are facts which I believe a survey of the use of antithesis 
prior to and including the Attic Orators will make clear.” 
Specimens of Antithesis in Greek literature prior to the Attic Orators.™ 


HoMER 
Il. I, 137: εἰ δὲ κε μὴ δώωσιν, ἔγὼ δέ κεν αὐτὸς ἕλωμαι. 
I, 395: ἢ ἔπει ὥνησας κραδίην Διὸς ἠὲ καὶ ἔργῳ. 


III, 208: ἀμφοτέρων δὲ φυὴν ἐδάην kal μήδεα πυκνά. 
210-211: στάντων μὲν Μενέλαος ὑπείρεχεν εὐρέας ὥμους ἄμφω 
δ᾽ ἐζομένω, γεραρώτερος ἦεν ᾿Οδυσσεύς. 
ΙΝ, 197: τῷ μὲν κλέος, ἄμμι δὲ πένθος. 
424 f.: πόντῳ μὲν τὰ πρῶτα κορύσσεται, αὐτὰρ ἔπειτα χέρσῳ 
“ρηγνύμενον μεγάλα βρέμει. 
442 f£.: (Ἔρις) ἥτ᾽ ὀλίγη μὲν πρῶτα κορύσσεται, αὐτὰρ ἔπειτα 
οὐρανῷ ἐστήριξε Kapn καὶ ἐπὶ χθονὶ βαίνει. 
ἘΧ 367 f.: γέρας δὲ μοι, ὅσπερ ἔδωκεν αὖτις ἐφυβρίζων ἕλετο 
κρείων ᾿Αγαμέμνων. 
450: τὴν αὐτὸς φιλέεσκεν, ἀτιμάζεσκε δ᾽ ἄκοιτιν. 
XVIII, 252: ἀλλ᾽ ὁ μὲν ἂρ μύθοισιν, ὁ δὲ ἔγχεϊ πολλὸν ἐνίκα. 
400 {: ὁ μὲν εὔχετο πάντ᾽ ἀποδοῦναι, 
ὁ δ᾽ ἀναίνετο μηδὲν ἑλέσθαι. 


XX, 250: ὅπποιον x’ εἴπῃσθα ἔπος, τοῖον κ᾿ ἐπακούσαις. 
Οὐ ΠῚ: 82: πρῆξις δ᾽ ἥδ᾽ ἰδίη, οὐ δήμιος (Cf. Od. IV, 314). 
ΙΝ, 818: οὔτε πόνων εὖ εἰδὼς οὐτ᾽ ἀγοράων. 


VI, 149-153: εἰ μὲν θεός ἐσσι, τοὶ οὐρανὸν εὐρὺν ἔχουσιν. 
εἰ δὲ τίς ἐσσι βροτῶν,οἱ ἐπὶ χθονὶ ναιετάουσιν. 

10 Cf. Nieschke, De Figurarum quae σχήματα Γοργιεῖα vocantur apud Herodotum, 
p. 21: Nam multo ante Gorgias aetatem veteres poetae Graeci illis ornamentis 
universi non minus libenter et saepe, quam Empedoclem, usi sunt, neque ab Homero 
usque ad Empedoclem facile ullus poeta qui eis careat, reperiri potest. Qua in re 
non multum interest inter varia poesis genera, sed aeque omnes fere poetae elegiaci, 
lyrici, tragici, comici idque saepe de industria mihi quidem videntur. 

τ The following selections from the forerunners of the orators, though not exhaustive 
are believed to be fairly representative of antithesis in antecedent Greek literature. 
Reference is made to the following editions: Homer (J/iad), Monro, 1897; (Odyssey), 
Merry, 1888; Hesiod, A. Rzach, 1902; Pindar, Christ, 1896; Simonides, Bergk, Poetae 
Lyrici Graeci, Vol. III; Aeschylus, Weil, 1907; Sophocles, Dindorf, 1896; Euripides, 
Nauck, 1901; Tragicorum Graecorum Fragmenta, Nauck; Gorgias, Baiter-Sauppe, II, 
p. 129; Herodotus, Kallenberg, 1901; Thucydides, Hude, 1901. 

Besides reverting to the originals, I have drawn freely upon Nieschke, Stein, and 
Robertson; for the Tragedians I am partly indebted to Hermanowski (pp. 10-12). 


18 ANTITHESIS IN ATTIC ORATORS, ANTIPHON TO ISAEUS 


VII, 60: ὁ μὲν ὥλεσε λαὸν---ὥλετο δ᾽ αὐτός. 
XIII, 297: σὺ μέν ἐσσι βροτῶν dx’ ἄριστος ἁπάντων 
---οβούλῃ καὶ μύθοισιν. 
299: ἔγὼ δ᾽ ἐν πᾶσι θεοῖσιν μήτ᾽ τε κλέομαι καὶ κέρδεσιν. 

There are doubtless unintentional antitheses in Homer, as in all 
literature, and there is unintentional contrast.” Those cited, many of 
them combining homoeoteleuton, indicate a decided antithetic turn. 
We find here in Homer the first appearance of many of the most common 
‘antitheses found in the Attic Orators: that between Word and Deed 
(fl. I, 395, XVIII, 252), Private-Public (Od. III, 82), Active-Passive 
(l. XX, 250, Od. VII, 60); and that between Saying and Hearing, which 
is frequent in the tragedians. There are also those between Good 
and Bad, Give and Take, Mortal and Immortal. In view of these it 
were idle to neglect this early source of antithesis. Homer’s antitheses, 
like his similes and his characters, were the common property of all suc- 
ceeding writers. 


HESIOD 


Owing to the didactic character of the “Works and Days,” antithesis 
is for it a natural means of expression. There is seen in the following 
selections a formal balancing of opposites—secured, as sometimes in 
Homer, by repetition (101). The positive-negative type of antithesis 
is particularly frequent in Hesiod (311), as are opposite terms formed 
by a-privative (épyov—depyin, ἀνολβίη---ὄλβος, 319, etc.). 

101: πλείη μὲν yap γαῖα κακῶν, πλείη δὲ θάλασσα. 

287-291: τὴν μέν τοι κακότητα καὶ ἰλαδὸν ἔστιν ἑλέσθαι ‘pyidiws’ λείη μὲν 
ὁδός, μάλα δ᾽ ἔγγύθι ναίει τῆς δ᾽ ἀρετῆς ἱδρῶτα θεοὶ προπάροιθεν 
ἔθηκαν ἀθάνατοι. 

311: ἔργον δ᾽ οὐδὲν ὄνειδος, ἀεργίη τ᾽ ὄνειδος. 

342: τὸν φιλέοντ᾽ ἐπὶ δαῖτα καλεῖν, τὸν δ᾽ ἐχθρὸν ἐᾶσαι. 

700-702: Οὐ μὲν γάρ τι γυναικὸς ἀνὴρ ληϊζετ᾽ ἄμεινον τῆς ἀγαθῆς τῆς δ᾽ 
αὖτε κακῆς ov ‘ploy ἄλλο, δειπνολόχης. 

721: εἰ δὲ κακὸν εἴποις, τάχα x’ αὐτὸς μεῖζον ἀκούσαις... 


Cf. Benn, Early Greek Philosophers, p 12.. 


Other instances from the “Works and Days” (cited by Nieschke, De Thucy., 
p. 67) are lines 5-7; 182-184; 213-244; 354-356; 365-369; 715-716; 726; 761-762. 


ANTITHESIS BEFORE THE ATTIC ORATORS 19 


SIMONIDES 


τὰ ϑ , ll 
τῶν ἐν θερμοπύλαις θανόντων 

’ \ \ t U \ ene , 
εὐκλεὴς μὲν ἁ τύχα, καλὸς δ᾽ ὁ πότμος, 
βωμὸς δ᾽ ὁ τάφος, πρὸ γόων δὲ μνᾶστις, ὁ δ᾽ 


οἶκτος ἔπαινος᾽ 


ἐντάφιον δὲ τοιοῦτον οὔτ᾽ ἐυρώς 


οὔθ᾽ ὁ πα 


νδαμάτωρ ἀμαυρώσει χρόνος (Fr. 4). 


πάντα τοι καλά, τοῖσι 7’ αἰσχρὰ μὴ μέμικται (Fr. 5 


Χαλεπὸν 


gat’ ἐσθλὸν ἔμμεναι. 
θεὸς ἂν μόνος τοῦτ᾽ ἔχοι γέρας᾽ ἄνδρα δ᾽ οὐκ ἔστι μὴ οὐ 


κακὸν ἔμμεναι, 


ὃν ἀμάχανος συμφορὰ καθέλῃ 

πράξαις γὰρ εὖ πᾶς ἀνὴρ ἀγαθός, 

κακὸς δ᾽, εἰ κακῶς (τι) (Fr. 5). 

Μυριάσιν ποτὲ τῇδε τριακοσίαις ἐμάχοντο 

ἐκ Πελοποννάσου χιλιάδες τέτορες (91). 

Οὐ δὲ τεθνᾶσι θανόντες, ἐπεί σφ᾽ ἀρετὴ καθύπερθεν 
κυδαίνουσ᾽ ἀνάγει δώματος ἐξ ᾿Αἴΐδεω (99). 
μνῆμα δ᾽ ἀποθιμένοισι πατὴρ Μεγάριστος ἔθηκεν 
ἀθάνατον θνητοῖς παισὶ χαριζόμενος (123). 
οὗτος ὁ τοῦ Κείοιο Σιμωνιδέω ἐστὶ σαωτήρ, 

ὃς καὶ τεθνηὼς ζῶντι παρέσχε χάριν (129). 


PINDAR 


@; II, 17-19: τῶν δὲ πεπραγμένων 


O 
O 
Oe EET, 
N 


Tsthy LE, 
VII, 


2 , \ \ , ᾽ , 99) ἡ 
ἐν δίκᾳ τε καὶ Tapa δίκαν ἀποίητον οὐδ᾽ ἂν 
I e , A , L ” , 14 
χρόνος 6 πάντων πατὴρ δύναιτο θέμεν ἔργων τέλος. 
26: ζώει μὲν ἐν ᾿᾽Ολυμπίοις ἀποθανοῖσα βρόμῳ κεραύνου. 
19: ἦν δ᾽ ἐσορᾶν καλός, ἔργῳ τ᾽ οὐ κατὰ ρεἶδος ἐλέγχων. 
22: ἀνὴρ θεοῦ σὺν παλάμᾳ. 
63: ἀγώνιον ἐν δόξᾳ θέμενος εὖχος, ἔργῳ καθελών. 
49: ἐγὼ δὲ εἴδιος ἐκ κοινῷ σταλείς. 
32: ἐπεὶ ἱρέζοντά τι παθεῖν ἔοικεν. 
71: μορφὰν βραχὺς ψυχὰν δ᾽ ἄκαμπτος. 
43 f.: τὰ μακρὰ δ᾽ εἴ τις παπταίνει, βραχὺς ἐξικέσθαι χαλ- 


κόπεδον θεῶν ἕδραν. 


4 “Time, the producer of all things, is able to destroy nothing’”—Seymour. 
15 An approximation to antithesis is seen in the “Pindaric approach by parallels,” 
ΘΠ 42-1: Ps Ok, 11-12. 


20 ANTITHESIS IN ATTIC ORATORS, ANTIPHON ΤῸ ISAEUS 


Pers. 93: 
763: 
813: 
Prom. 336: 


AESCHYLUS 


δολόμητιν δ᾽ ἀπάταν θεοῦ τις ἀνὴρ θνατὸς ἀλύξει ; 
ἕν᾽ ἄνδρ᾽ ἁπάσης ᾿Ασίδος μηλοτρόφου ταγεῖν. 

τοι γὰρ κακῶς δράσαντας οὐκ ἐλάσσονα πάσχουσι. 
ἔργῳ κ᾽ οὐ λόγῳ τεκμαίρομαι. 


888 f.: πρῶτος ἐν γνώμᾳ τόδ᾽ ἐβάστασε 


927: 


καὶ γλώσσα διεμυθολόγησεν. 
(μαθήσεται) ὅσον τό τ᾽ ἄρχειν καὶ τὸ δουλεύειν δίχα. 


1030 f.: ὡς ὅδ᾽ οὐ πεπλασμένος ὁ κόμπος, ἀλλὰ καὶ λίαν εἰρημένος. 
1080 f.: καὶ μὴν ἔργῳ, κοὐκέτι μύθῳ. 
Agam. 750-762: παλάιφατος δ᾽ ἐν βροτοῖς γέρων λόγος 


1527: 
1564: 
Choeph. 520: 


τέτυκται, μέγαν τελεσθέντα φωτὸς ὄλβον 
~ I» ᾽ 

τεκνοῦσθαι μηδ᾽ ἄπαιδα θνήσκειν, 

2 513 ~ , ZL 

ἐκ δ᾽ ἀγαθᾶς τύχας γένει “ 

βλαστάνειν ἀκόρεστον οἰζύν. 

δίχα δ᾽ ἄλλων μονόφρων εἰ- 

μί. τὸ δυσσεβὲς γὰρ ἔργον 

μετὰ μὲν πλείονα τίκτει. 
, ᾽ 2: 9 ul 

σφετέρᾳ δ᾽ εἰκότα γέννᾳ. 

οἰκῶν δ᾽ ἄρ᾽ εὐθυδίκων 

καλλίπαις πότμος ἀεί. 


ἄξια δράσας, ἄξια πάσχων. 
παθεῖν τὸν ἔρξαντα (Cf. Choeph. 1016 ff). 


τὰ πάντα γάρ τις ἐκχέας ἀνθ᾽ αἵματος ἑνός." 


906 f.: τούτῳ θανοῦσα συγκάθευδ᾽, ἐπεὶ φιλεῖς τὸν ἄνδρα τοῦτον, ὅν 


δ᾽ ἐχρῆν φιλεῖν στυγεῖς. 


SOPHOCLES 


Antig. 14: μιᾳ θανόντων ἡμέρᾳ διπλῇ χερί." 
88: θερμὴν ἐπὶ ψυχροῖσι καρδίαν ἔχεις.}3 
272 f.: ἦν ὁ μῦθος ὡς ἀνοιστέον. σόι τοὔργον εἴη τοῦτο κοὐτὶ 


κρουπτέον. 


713 f.: κλῶνας ὡς ἐκσώζεται τὸ δ᾽ ἀντιτείνοντ᾽ αὐτόπρεμ᾽ ἀπόλ- 


λυται. 


16 Cf. Septem 1050: ἀλλ᾽ εἰς ἅπαντας ἀνθ᾽ ἑνὸς τόδ᾽ ἔργον ἦν. 
11 The antithesis is strained: διπλῇ being used in the sense of “reciprocal.” 
18 Cf. O. Ὁ. 621 f; also Vergil, Aen. IX, 414: Volvitur ille vomens calidum de pectore 


flumen Frigidus. 


See also Hor. ‘Ars. Poet. 465: ardentem frigidus§Aetnam insiluit. 


ANTITHESIS BEFORE THE ATTIC ORATORS 21 


744 {.: Kp: ἁμαρτάνω γὰρ τὰς ἐμὰς ἀρχὰς σέβων; At: οὐ γὰρ 
σέβεις, τιμάς γε τὰς θεῶν πατῶν. 
757: βούλει λέγειν τι καὶ λέγων μηδὲν κλύειν ;19 
766 f.: ἀνήρ, ἄναξ, βέβηκεν ἐξ ὀργῆς ταχύς" νοῦς δ᾽ ἐστὶ τηλικοῦτος 
ἀλγήσας βαρύς. 
Philoct. 555 f.: κοὐ μόνον βουλεύματα, ἀλλ᾽ ἔργα δρώμεν᾽, οὐκέτ᾽ ἐξαργ- 
οὐμενα. 
OVS: 524: ὀργῇ βιασθὲν μᾶλλον ἢ γνώμῃ φρενῶν. 
600: οὐκ ἄν γένοιτο νοῦς κακὸς καλῶς φρονῶν. 
614 [.: (ἐπεὶ) χρόνος δίκαιον ἄνδρα δείκνυσιν μόνος κακὸν δὲ κἂν 
ἐν ἡμέρᾳ γνοίης μιᾷ. 
Ajax 1085 f.: καὶ μὴ δοκῶμεν δρῶντες ἅν ἡδώμεθα οὐκ ἀντιτίσειν αὖθις 
ἃν λυπώμεθα. 


El. 59 f.: τί yap με λυπεῖ τοῦθ᾽, ὅταν λόγῳ θανὼν ἔργοισι σῳθῶ 
κἀξενέγκωμαι κακόν." 
O.C. 306 f.: ὥστε Ket βραδὺς οὗ δεῖ, κλύων σοῦ δεῦρ᾽ ἀφίξεται ταχύς. 
EURIPIDES 


Med. 17 f.: προδοὺς yap αὑτοῦ τέκνα δεσπότιν τ᾽ ἐμήν γάμοις ᾿Ιάσων 
βασιλικοῖς εὐνάζεται."" 
473 1.: yw τε γὰρ λέξασα κουφισθήσομαι Ψυχὴν κακῶς σε καί συ 
λυπήσει κλύων. 
Alc. 2339: λόγῳ γὰρ ἦσαν οὐ ἔργῳ gira.” 
Hec. 289 ἢ: ἃς τὸ πρῶτον οὐκ ἐκτείνατε βωμῶν ἀποσπάσαντες, ἀλλ᾽ 
φκτείρατε. 
904 ff.: πᾶσι γὰρ κοινὸν τόδε 
ἰδίᾳ θ᾽ ἑκάστῳ καὶ πόλει, τὸν μὲν κακὸν 
κακόν τι πάσχειν, τὸν δὲ χρηστὸν εὐτυχεῖν.33 


19 Οἵ, Alcaeus, Frag. 63: αἴ εἴπῃς τὰ θέλεις, αὐτός αὐκούσαις κέ τέ κ᾽ οὐ θέλεις. 


“The hearing ear is always found close to the speaking tongue” —Emerson, English 
Traits. 


20 For the terms, cf. Thucy. II, 22; Ant. V, 72. 
2 For other λόγος---ἔργον antitheses, cf. El. 557 f.; 624 f.; O. C. 782, 873. 
22 The emphatic words αὑτοῦ and éunv suggest a false antithesis. 


* For other λόγος---ἔργον antitheses in Euripides, cf. I. A. 1115; Orest. 287. 
Phoen. 526; El. 893. See also Phoen. 359 f. (λόγος---νοῦς); Heracl. 542 (λόγοι---τὐχη). 
*4 τὸν δὲ χρηστὸν εὐτυχεῖν is added merely for the sake of the antithesis to 


τὸν---πάσχειν, and is not appropriate to the context, for all that Agamemnon is 
insisting upon is the punishment of the wicked—Heberden. 


22 ANTITHESIS IN ATTIC ORATORS, ANTIPHON TO ISAEUS 


I. A. 554-557: εἴη δὲ μοι μετρία μὲν χάρις, πόθοι δ᾽ ὅσιοι, 
καὶ μετέχοιμι τᾶς ᾿Αφροδίτας πολλὰν δ᾽ ἀποθείμαν. 
957: ds ὀλίγ᾽ ἀληθῆ, πολλὰ δὲ ψευδῆ λέγει 
990: ἀλλ᾽ εὖ μὲν ἀρχὰς εἶπας, εὖ δὲ καὶ τέλη. 
El. Sy ier: (ἤδη yap εἶδον) 
λιμόν τ᾽ ἐν ἀνδρὸς πλουσίου φρονήματι, 
γνώμην δὲ μεγάλην ἐν πένητι σώματι. (cf. Hel. 160, 161). 
1044 f.: εἶτα τὸν μὲν οὐ θανεῖν 
κτείνοντα χρῆν τἄμ᾽, ἐμὲ δὲ πρὸς κείνου παθεῖν 
Or. 743: ποῦ ᾽στιν ἣ πλείστους ᾿Αχαιῶν ὥλεσεν γυνὴ μία ;* 
Hel. 922 f.: αἰσχρὸν τὰ μέν σε θεῖα παντ᾽ ἐξειδέναι 
τἀ τ᾽ ὄντα καὶ μή, τὰ δὲ δίκαια μὴ εἰδέναι. 


Tr: 637: τοῦ ζῆν δὲ λυπρῶς κρεῖσσόν ἐστι KaTabaveiv.” 


It is clear from the above examples that antithesis was a well-known 
and favorite feature of expression among the early poets and the trage- 
dians. End-rhyme (homoeoteleuton), whether by chance or design is 
often associated with it. Without repeating the quotations, we may note 
the fact that the principal forms of antithetical construction followed 
by the Attic Orators were anticipated by the poets who preceded them. 
There is intra-clausal antithesis by means of μᾶλλον ἤ (Soph. O. R. 
524), and by οὐκ---ἀλλά (Aesch. Prom. 336, 1080, Eur. Alc. 339), and 
that which is secured by normal case relations within the sentence 
(Aesch. Prom. 763, Soph. Antig. 88, Eur. Alc. 743).%” In the antithesis 
of codrdinate clauses, the most common form is that where a single 
ἐναντίον occurs in each clause. Examples of two opposites in each 
clause are not wanting (Soph. O. R. 614, Eur. El. 371, I. A. 554). Length- 
ier antitheses with a more complicated arrangement of terms occur 
in Homer, Ody. VI, 149-153; XIII, 297-299; Eur. Hec. 904 ff. One 
of the clauses is subordinate in Homer Il. I, 137, IX, 36/7, 
Hesiod 101, 342, 700, 721, Pindar N. IV, 32, Simonides Fr. 129, Aesch. 
Pers. 813, Soph. O. R. 600, O. C. 306, Eur. Hec. 289, I. A. 957. 


% Euripides is fond of the numerical antithesis. Cf. Orest. 7, 1244; Hipp. 1403; 
Heracl. Fur. 1139, 1391; Andr. 1116; I. A. 1358, 1390, 1394. 


36 This antithesis, in almost the identical form, occurs Aesch. Frag. 401; Soph. 
Ajax 479, Frag. 448; Eur. I. A. 1252, Frag. 596; and throughout the orators, especially 
Isocrates; see List of Antithetic Terms, p. 69. 


27 Antithesis between prepositions occurs Pindar O. II, 17-20 (&—ap4); by means 
of prepositions, Pind. O. XIII, 49, (ἴδιος ἐκ κοινῷ), Aesch. Choeph. 520 (πάντα ἀνθ᾽ ἑνός). 


ANTITHESIS BEFORE THE ATTIC ORATORS 23 


Some of the antitheses seem artificial; e. g., Aesch. Choeph. 906f. (φιλεῖς 
—orvyets), Soph. Antig. 744 (σέβων---πατῶν), Eur. Hec. 904; and some 
are strained (Soph. Antig. 14, Eur. Med. 17). In fact, antithesis since 
Homer seems to have passed through the various stages of rare, moder- 
ate, and intemperate usage to be noted in prose. By Pindar and Simon- 
ides it is used occasionally and with sententious effect; in Aeschylus 
and Sophocles, more extensively; in Euripides, we find its frequent 
abuse, and its artificiality shown in the more frequent homoeoteleuta.” 

It is a short step between poetry and early prose.?? Bearing in mind 
that antithesis was by no means a new phenomenon in Greek literature 
before the advent of prose, but a well-developed rhetorical device, we 
shall, even at the risk of some chronological discrepancy, consider 
Gorgias first, then Herodotus and Thucydides, before speaking of Anti- 
phon and the succeeding orators. 


GORGIAS 

The following selections are from the Epitaphios, and, indeed, con- 
stitute the greater part of the remains of his masterpiece; they are the 
main criterion for judging the character of his style. 

θεράποντες μὲν τῶν ἀδίκως δυστυχούντων, 
κολασταὶ δὲ τῶν ἀδίκως εὐτυχούντων. 
μαρτύρια δὲ τούτων τρόπαια ἐστήσαντο τῶν πολεμίων, 
Διὸς μὲν ἀγάλματα αὐτῶν δὲ ἀναθήματα. 
τί γὰρ ἀπὴν τοῖς ἄνδρασι τούτοις ὧν δεῖ ἄνδρασι προσεῖναι ; 
τί δὲ καὶ προσῆν ὧν οὐ δεῖ προσεῖναι ; 
τοιγαροῦν αὐτῶν ἀποθανόντων ὁ πόθος οὐ συναπέθανεν, 
ἀλλ᾽ ἀθάνατος ἐν ἀσωμάτοις σώμασι ζῇ οὐ ζώντων. 
δίκαιοι μὲν πρὸς τοὺς ἀστοὺς τῷ ἴσῳ, εὐσεβεῖς δὲ πρὸς 
τοὺς φίλους τῇ πίστει 
σεμνοὶ μὲν πρὸς τοὺς θεοὺς τῷ δικαίῳ ὅσιοι δὲ πρὸς 
τοὺς τοκέας τῇ θεραπείᾳ. 
οὗτοι γὰρ ἐκέκτωντο ἔνθεον μὲν τὴν ἀρετήν, ἀνθρώπινον δὲ τὸ θνητόν. 
λαθὼν μὲν τὴν θείαν νέμεσιν, φυγὼν δὲ τὸν ἀνθρώπινον φθόνον. 
τὰ μὲν κατὰ τῶν βαρβάρων τρόπαια ὕμνους ἀπαιτεῖ, τὰ 
δὲ τῶν Ἑλλήνων θρήνους. 

*8 As regards the antithetic terms used we may note the extensive use of the 
λόγος---ἔργον antithesis, also of ἴδιος----κοινός, δράω---πάσχω, θνητός---θέος, λέγω--ἀκούω, 
and antitheses in φύσις and γνώμη. These are noted under the proper head at the 
beginning of the antithetic word lists of the orators. et 


29 Cf. Arist. Rhet. III, 1, 1404 a: ἐπεὶ δ᾽ οἱ ποιηταὶ λέγοντες εὐήθη διὰ τὴν λέξιν ἐδόκουν 
πορίσασθαι τήνδε δόξαν, διὰ τοῦτο ποιητικὴ πρώτη ἐγένετο λέξις, οἷον ἡ Γοργίου. 


24 ANTITHESIS IN ATTIC ORATORS, ANTIPHON TO ISAEUS 


Gorgias’s prose bears striking resemblance to poetry and it is not un- 
likely that he had made careful study of Homer and had read the trage- 
dies of Aeschylus and Sophocles before his initial appearance at Athens 
(427 B. C.). The immoderate use of the figures of parallelism was cen- 
sured by Dionysius as μειρακιῶδες καὶ καθαπερεὶ ποίημα (De Lys. 14).%° 
The jingle, the straining of meaning to obtain antithetical effect, and’ 
the excessive use of these figures were characteristic features of the Gor- 
gianic prose.*! Connoisseur in antithetic writing that he was, he startled 
and fascinated the Athenians and bid for the name of ebperns. We cannot 
assume that he originated the art in the highly developed stage which 
his prose represents, or that the feature of expression was unknown or 
unpractised by the Athenians. While the excessive use of these figures 
in prose was perhaps unusual, the Athenians had met them toa moderate 
extent in the narrative of Herodotus. 


HERODOTUS 


We are not surprised to find in Herodotus’s prose the basic contrasts 
of Greek-Barbarian, Free-Slave. The following passages from the 
speeches and narrative portions of the History show that he not infre- 
quently accentuated his contrasts designedly by the opposition of par- 
ticular words. We observe the use of the λόγος---ἔργον, and other 
antithetic terms common in later prose. ἀντιμεταβολή (inversion of the 
order of terms in the second member of an antithesis) occurs ΠῚ, 72. 
Nieschke thinks it very unlikely that Herodotus followed Protagoras 
Empedocles, or Gorgias as regards this kind of writing; he notes the 
Pindaric influence in his prose, and shows the similarity of Herodotus’s 
narrative with certain portions of the Homeric poems.” 

I, 5: τὰ μὲν τὸ πάλαι μεγάλα ἦν, τὰ πολλὰ αὐτῶν σμικρὰ γέγονε, 
τὰ δὲ ἐπ᾽ ἐμεῦ ἦν μεγάλα, πρότερον ἦν σμικρά. 

I, 126: τὴν μὲν γὰρ προτέρην ἡμέρην πάντα σφι κακὰ ἔχειν, τὴν δὲ τότε 
παρεοῦσαν πάντα ἀγαθά. 


30 Cicero (Orat. LII, 175) speaks of the cadence which the balanced clauses lend 
the speaker’s periods: (contraria) quae sua sponte etiam si id non agas cadunt plerumque 
numerose. 

31 Cf. Robertson, p. 31. See also the Platonic parody of Gorgias, Gorg. 448 c, and 
cf. Phaedr. 267 a. 

For the so-called ‘‘Gorgianic” Helen, see below, p. 63 ff. 

32 De figurarum quae σχήματα Τοργιεῖα vocantur apud Herodotum usu, pp. 14-17; 
20-23. 


ANTITHESIS BEFORE THE ATTIC ORATORS 25 


I, 133: σίτοισι δὲ ὀλίγοισι χρέωνται, ἐπιφορήμασι δὲ πολλοῖσι. 

Ι, 210: ὃς ἀντὶ μὲν δούλων ἐποίησας ἐλευθέρους Πέρσας εἶναι, ἀντὶ δὲ 
ἄρχεσθαι ὑπ᾽ ἄλλων ἄρχειν ἁπάντων. 

11,33: τρέφειν τοὺς τοκέας τοῖσι μὲν παισὶ οὐδεμία ἀνάγκη μὴ βουλομένοισι, 
τῃσὶ δὲ θυγατράσι πᾶσα ἀνάγκη καὶ μὴ βουλομένῃσι. 

II, 68: τὸ πολλὸν τῆς ἡμέρας διατρίθει ἐν τῷ ξηρῷ, τὴν δὲ νύκτα πᾶσαν 
ἐν τῷ ποταμῷ. 

III, 32: τὸν μὲν Καμβύσεα ἥδεσθαι θεώμενον, τὴν δὲ ἸΤαρμένην δακρύειν. 

III, 53: πολλοὶ δὲ ἤδη τὰ μητρώια διζήμενοι τὰ πατρώια ἀπέβαλον. 

Ill, 72: πολλά ἐστι τὰ λόγῳ μὲν οὐκ οἷά τε δηλῶσαι, ἔργῳ be ἄλλα δ᾽ 
ἐστὶ τὰ λόγῳ μὲν οἷά τε, ἔργον δὲ οὐδὲν ἀπ’ αὐτῶν λαμπρὸν γίγνεται. 
(For λόγος--ἔργον, cf. also IV, 8, VI, 38). 

III, 72: ὁμοίως ἂν 6 τε ἀληθιζόμενος ψευδὴς etn καὶ ὁ ψευδόμενος ἀληθής. 

III, 80: φθονέει γὰρ τοῖσι ἀρίστοισι--χαίρει δὲ τοῖσι κακίστοισι τῶν 
ἀστῶν. 

VI, 41: ἐποίησε κακὸν μὲν οὐδὲν Μητίοχον ἀγαθὰ δὲ συχνά. 

VI, 56: στρατευομένων δὲ πρώτους ἰέναι τοὺς βασιλέας, ὑστάτους δὲ ἀπιέναι. 

VII, 11: ἀλλὰ ποιέειν ἢ παθεῖν προσκέεται ἀγών, ἵνα ἢ τάδε πάντα ὑπὸ 
Ἕλλησι ἢ ἐκεῖνα πάντα ὑπὸ ἹΤέρσῃσι γένηται. 

VII, 38: τὸ σοὶ μὲν ἐλαφρὸν τυγχάνει ἐὸν ὑπουργῆσαι, ἐμοὶ δὲ μέγα γενόμενον. 

VII, 47: μηδὲ κακῶν μεμνεώμεθα, χρηστὰ ἔχοντες ἐν χερσί. 

VII, 50: κρέσσον δὲ πάντα θαρσέοντα ἥμισυ τῶν δεινῶν πάσχειν μᾶλλον 
ἢ πᾶν χρῆμα προδειμαίνοντα μηδαμὰ μηδὲν παθεῖν. 


THUCYDIDES 


Thucydides was not a forerunner of all the orators: he was a dis- 
ciple of Antiphon. A historical résumé would hardly be complete 
without mentioning his highly antithetic style. This characteristic 
feature of his writing has been carefully studied by various scholars 
(See Stein, pp. 5-6). I shall, therefore, refer to these more exhaustive 
studies, and give only a few typical examples from the many and elabor- 
ate antitheses, which sometimes merely adorn, but for the most part 
vitalize the narrative and intrench his arguments. 

II, 48, 3: ἃ ἐπιστάμενος τῷ μὲν ἔργῳ ἔτι ἐπ᾽ ἀμφότερα ἔχων Kai διασκοπῶν 
ἀνεῖχε, τῷ δ᾽ ἐμφανεῖ τότε λόγῳ οὐκ ἔφη ἀπάξειν τὴν στρατιάν 3 

VII, 34, 7: ἀποπλευσάντων δὲ τῶν ᾿Αθηνάιων ἐς τὴν Ναύπακτον οἱ ἸΚορίνθιοι 
εὐθὺς τροπαῖον ἔστησαν ὡς νικῶντες, ὅτι πλείους τῶν ἐναντίων ναῦς ἄπλους 
ἐποίησαν καὶ νομίσαντες δι᾽ αὐτὸ οὐχ ἡσσᾶσθαι δι᾽ ὅπερ οὐδ᾽ οἱ ἕτεροι νικᾶν. οἵ 

33 The λόγος---ἔργον antithesis occurs about fifty times in Thucydides (Marchant). 


26 ANTITHESIS IN ATTIC ORATORS, ANTIPHON TO ISAEUS 


τε yap Κορίνθιοι ἡγήσαντο κρατεῖν, el μὴ πολὺ ἐκρατοῦντο, οἵ τε ᾿Αθηναῖοι 
ἐνόμιζον ἡσσᾶσθαι, εἰ μὴ πολὺ ἐνίκων. 

II, 11, 5: χρὴ δὲ αἰεὶ ἐν τῇ πολεμίᾳ τῇ μὲν γνώμῃ θαρσαλέους στρατεύειν, 
τῷ δὲ ἔργῳ δεδιότας παρασκευάζεσθαι." 

IV, 61, fin: οἵ 7’ ἐπίκλητοι εὐπρεπῶς ἄδικοι ἐλθόντες εὐλόγως ἄπρακτοι. 

II, 60, 2: ἐγὼ γὰρ ἡγοῦμαι πόλιν πλείω ξύμπασαν ὀρθουμένην ὠφελεῖν 
τοὺς ἰδιῶτας ἢ καθ᾽ ἕκαστον τῶν πολιτῶν εὐπραγοῦσαν, ἀθρόαν δὲ σφαλλομένην. 
II, 62, 5: καὶ τὴν τόλμαν ἀπὸ τῆς ὁμόιας τύχης ἡ ξύνεσις ἐκ τοῦ ὑπέρφρονος 
ἐχυρωτέραν παρέχεται, ἐλπίδι τε ἧσσον πιστεύει, ἧς ἐν τῷ ἀπόρῳ ἡ ἰσχύς, 
γνώμῃ δὲ ἀπὸ τῶν ὑπαρχόντων, ἧς βεβαιοτέρα ἡ πρόνοια. 

I, 70, 6: τοῖς μὲν σώμασιν ἀλλοτριωτάτοις ὑπὲρ τῆς πόλεως χρῶνται, 
τῇ Ὑνώμῃ δὲ οἰκειοτάτῃ ἐς τὸ πράσσειν τι ὑπὲρ αὐτῆς." 

Most scholars agree, I think, with Croiset, that there is a constant 
dual opposition of ideas: ‘‘Le moule de la phrase rend sensible cette 
perpetuelle opposition.’’** Moreover, the grave historian is sometimes 
led astray through imitation of Gorgias, and the precision of his care- 
fully formed antitheses is often only apparent. Stein, however, defends 
Thucydides’s style against the aspersions of Dionysius and the criticisms 
of modern interpreters. He selects as a typical example the famous 
passage in I, 70, 8, where the Athenians and Spartans are compared, 
pointing out the pleasing and unaffected symmetry of the antitheses.*” 
The most elaborate antitheses are found in the speeches, from which 
illustrative examples are usually taken. Similar phenomena, in a slightly 
less degree, characterize the narrative portions. They all reveal him 
a consummate master of rhetorical devices. 

«<The antithesis is only partial: γνώμῃ θαρσαλέους answers to ἔργῳ δεδιότας, 
but not στρατεύειν to παρασκευάζεσθαι, except in so far as στρατεύειν, which refers” 
to the whole enterprise, is opposed to παρασκεύαζεσθαι, implying the details of 
preparation”—Jowett. 

Figures in yr@ua are common throughout Thucydides; cf. II, 87: νομίσαι δὲ ταῖς 
μὲν τύχαις ἐνδέχεσθαι σφάλλεσθαι τοὺς ἀνθρώπους, ταῖς δὲ γνώμαις τοὺς αὐτοὺς αἰεὶ ὀρθοὺς 
εἶναι. Compare I, 144, 4. γνώμη---τύχη is a common antithesis in Antiphon (V, 5, 72, 
92). See also παρεσκευή---τύχη VI, 23, 3; VII, 67, 4. 

% Jowett improves the strained antithesis between ἀλλοτριωτάτοις and οἰκειοτάτῃ: 
“Their bodies they devote to their country as if they belonged to other men; their 
true self is their mind, which is most truly their own when employed in her service.” 
Compare Isoc. IV, 86; Lys. [II, 24]. See also Thucy. I, 44: καὶ οἷς ἐνευδαιμονῆσαΐ τε ὁ 
βίος ὁμοίως καὶ ἐντελευτῆσαι ξυνεμετρήθη, where the word ἐντελευτῆσαι (requiring ἐν 
αὐτῷ to complete it) is a strained parallel to ἐνευδαιμονῆσαι. A false antithesis joc- 
curs VII, 69, 2. 


86 Croiset, Thucydide, Intr. p. 115 ff. Cf. Blass, I, 217 ff. 
37 Stein, p. 7 ff., and p. 14. 


III. ANTITHESIS IN THE ATTIC ORATORS FROM ANTIPHON 
TO ISAEUS 


From the foregoing survey we observe that antithetical writing was 
not confined to any particular epoch, or to any special branch of litera- 
ture. Its origin is as inconspicuous and evasive as the first efforts of a 
language to be artistic. A feature common to all language growth, it 
had its origin from within; impetus towards a greater developement 
was gained from foreign as well as domestic sources. 

The Attic Orators consequently found at their disposal a fairly well- 
developed figure of speech, and one particularly adapted for the exigen- 
cies of forensic speaking, where thought must have the strength of 
persuasion, and where there was a premium on artistic expression. 
In studying a figure in this domain of literature, due allowance must be 
made for individual bent of genius. Writers of the same period are not 
equally committed to antithetic writing. The decline in the use of 
antithesis noticeable in Isaeus is observed in succeeding orators also and 
hence marks this as an important stage in the development of the figure. 
Formal antithesis had reached the limit of its growth, and gradually 
yielded ascendency to the subtler Figures of Thought. 

As previously stated, the subject will be considered broadly under 
the heads of Clausal and Intra-clausal antithesis. The forms of Clausal 
antithesis will be studied by authors in order to better observe individ- 
ual traits of antithetical writing. The varieties of Intra-clausal antith- 
esis, being more uniform, will first be severally taken up. 

Intra-clausal Antithesis. There is frequent and intentional contrast 
in the orators within the limits of a single clause. It assumes a variety 
of forms, some of them so common and uniform as to be regarded as 
stereotyped formulas of contrast (οὐκ---ἀλλά, μᾶλλον 7). Andocides 
employed certain forms of it because they were simple and effective; 
Antiphon and Isocrates studied thereby to heighten the effect of their 
antithetical periods. Generally in Lysias, always in Isaeus, this method 
of contrast directly strengthens the argument. Isocrates, most an- 
tithetical of the orators, employs the forms most frequently. 

Mention should first be made of a cognate form of intra-clausal 
contrast, which is not, strictly speaking, antithesis—the so-called “ Polare 
Ausdrucksweise,”’ or mannerism of mentioning a concept not as a whole, 
but by dividing it into opposite component parts, in order to express it 


28 ANTITHESIS IN ATTIC ORATORS, ANTIPHON ΤῸ ISAEUS 


the more fully.’ In place of saying περὶ πάντων ἐνομοθέτησεν, Isocrates 
says (XV, 255): οὗτος yap περὶ τῶν δικαίων καὶ τῶν ἀδίκων Kal τῶν καλῶν καὶ 
τῶν αἰσχρῶν ἐνομοθέτησεν. See also Ant. VI, 22.2, The most common 
antithetical terms—Adyos—é€pyov, ἴδιος--κοινός, ξένος-πολίτης (Lysias), 
Ἕλληνες-βάρβαροι (Isocrates)—are found in this universal form of expres- 
sion. The linked words are ordinarily nouns, but prepositional phrases 
are frequent, particularly in Isocrates.* It is copiously employed by 
Isocrates, especially in orations IV, XII, and XV; oration VIII, one 
of the most highly antithetic, is noticeably devoid of it. The other 
orators use the form sparingly. 

The two most common and effective forms of brief antithesis are 
those by means of οὐκ---ἀλλά and μᾶλλον ἤ. σχῆμα Kar’ ἄρσιν καὶ θέσιν 
is the name given by rhetoricians to the method of strengthening an 
assertion by juxtaposing the denial of its opposite (by οὐκ---ἀλλά, καὶ οὐ). 
Only those forms are considered here which are antithetical, and are 
intra-clausal. The form is used to contrast 1. nouns: these are for 
the most part objects of verbs,® or datives (mostly of specification) ;? 


1 For the psychological motive of this kind of writing, and instances of it in Homer, 
the tragedians, and all Greek literature, see Kemmer, Polare Ausdrucksweise. 


2 Other instances noted are Ant. IV, 6 5; Andoc. IIT, 17; Lys. XII, 35, 78; XVIII, 
13; XXI, 18; Isoc. IV, 27, 78, 108; V, 53; VI, 53; VII, 4; VIII, 33; LX, 59; XII, 57, 222, 
224; XV, 180; Isae. II, 32 bis; VIII, 12. ἢ 


3 Cf. iétos—xouvos in IV, 78; VIII, 55; XII, 222; XV, 180, 262; XVII, 54. καὶ 
κατὰ γῆν καὶ κατὰ θάλατταν occurs V, 47, 63; VI, 53, 74; VII, 7; VIII, 68; IX 54; 
XVI, 18. 


4 While by strict grammatical construction the word contrasts with οὐκ---ὠἀλλά and 
μᾶλλον ἤ may be regarded as clausal, yet, certainly, such expressions as ἔργῳ καὶ ob λόγῳ 
(Isae. II, 38) and τύχῃ μᾶλλον ἤ γνώμῃ (Andoc. I, 140) were felt as belonging to the 
same verb, and considered intra-clausal. Where single concepts are thus contrasted, 
I have treated them as intra-clausal—including the combination of infinitive or noun 
with adverb or prepositional phrase (e. g., Isoc. I, 36: αἱροῦ τεθνάναι καλῶς μᾶλλον ἢ 
ζῆν αἰσχρῶς); where the contrast is more extended, or the second verb or verbal 
clearly expressed, the phenomenon has been considered under clausal antithesis. 


δ See Hermogenes (II, 328), Anon. (III, 29), Volkmann, p. 560. 


5 Ant. III, 11; V, 6; Lys. XXIV, 16; XXVII, 13; Isoc. I, 27; Il, 22, 25; V, 113; 
VI, 98; IX, 77; XV, 292; Isae. V, 30; VI, 35 bis. 


7 Ant. I, 6 8; III, y 1, 3; IV, y 3; Lys. [XX, 1]; Isoc. II, 47; IV, 132; VI, 60; 
Isae. II, 38, 45. 


ANTITHESIS IN ATTIC ORATORS, ANTIPHON ΤΟ ISAEUS 29 


2. attributives;? 3. infinitives;? 4. prepositional phrases (particu- 
larly in Lysias and Isocrates);!°5. adverbs (in Isocrates).!! 12 
A parallel method of contrast, occurring with hardly less frequency 
in the same orations, is that by means of comparison. Simple com- 
parison (the second word often being immediately juxtaposed in the 
genitive case) is frequent in Lysias and Isocrates.* A more common 
form is the contrast of opposite words or phrases by μᾶλλον 7. The 
use is restricted to nouns and infinitive phrases (attributives not being 
thus contrasted as in the previous form). The nouns, again, are generally 
objects of verbs“ or of prepositions,” datives,’® or possessive genitives.!” 
A frequent and distinctive use is that with infinitive phrases—used 
either as subject or object. These often show striking uniformity. 
Isocrates says [IV, 95]: αἱρετώτερόν ἐστι καλῶς ἀποθανεῖν ἢ ζῆν αἰσχρῶς ; 
the same or similar terms occur in almost the identical form in Andoc. 
eS ἸΞΟΟ EL 136, 0V. 705 V,47, Vi, 8:89) Similarly, ys) MEX 54: 
βούλεσθε ἡμᾶς δικαίως σῶσαι μᾶλλον ἢ ἀδίκως ἀπολέσαι. See also Andoc. 
[IV, 25]; Lys. XXX, 33; Isoc. XVII, 54.18 The infinitives, as the 
8 Qualifying the subject: Lys. XVIII, 2; XXIV, 18; Isoc. IV, 80; VIII, 21; X, 
37; XV, 54; Isae. V, 29; VIL, 34. 
Qualifying the object: Isoc. VIII, 39; XII, 72; Ep. IX, 7. 
Adjectival clauses occur Lys. [XX, 13]; Isoc. VIII, 70. 
® Lys. XII, 1, 60; XXVI, 1, 9; Isoc. IV, 80; IX, 28; XVIII, 40. 
10 Ant. II, ὃ 8, 10; II, ὃ 4; Lys. I, 47; XU, 51, 78; XVIU, 1; XIX, 61; XXXI, 26: 
Isoc. I, 43; IV, 91, 132, 154; V, 29, 86, 115, 119; VI, 36, 104; IX, 45, 55, 60. 
τ Tsoc. IV, 104; V, 142; VIL, 134; IX, 23, 44; XII, 72; XV, 10; Ep. V, 2. Cf. 
Ant. II, 6 10. 
2 Cf. oby’ ὅπως, Isoc. XI, 41; Isae. V, 24; VIII, 25. This form is found more fre- 
quently with clausal construction; see note 35. 
1% Ant. VI, 25; Lys. VII, 30; XII, 86; XXXIII, 8; XXXIV, 5 bis; [II, 33]; Isoc. 
I, 10 ter; VII, 13 bis, 26, 58; XII, 121, 263; Ep. VI, 2. Cf. also Andoc. I, 57; [IV, 15]; 
1586. I, 29; III, 66. 
“Ant: Τ 25; Lys. X01, 80; XEX, 61; XXIV, 14; [EL, 62]; Isoe. I, 38; EV, 5081: 
111, 151; VI, 67; VII, 62; VIII, 39, 93, 120, 128; X, 65; XII, 174; Ep. ΤΙ. 1; Isae. I, 34. 
Ant. V, 6; Isoc. IV, 77, 168; VII, 11, 33; VIII, 93; IX, 3; XII, 240; XV, 158; XX, 
19. 
16 Ant. V, 5; VI, 1; Andoc. I, 140; Isoc. II, 33; Π| 61; V, 110; XVIII, 10. 
17 Ant. II, 6 7; Isoc. I, 6, 22; II, 36; Ep. VI, 11. See also Isoc. VIII, 93, 106. 
18 Cf. Aeschy. Frag. 401: 
Cans πονηρᾶς θάνατος αἱρετώτερος" 
τὸ μὴ γενέσθαι δ᾽ ἐστὶν ἢ πεφυκέναι 
κρεῖσσον κακῶς πάσχοντα. . 
See also Eur. Tr. 637: τοῦ ζῆν δὲ λυπρῶς κρεῖσσόν ἐστι καταθανεῖν. Cf. Eur. I, 
A. 1252, Frag. 596, and Soph. Frag. 448. 
For the thought, cf. Herodot. VII, 46: οὕτω ὁ μὲν θάνατος, μοχθηρῆς ἐούσης τῆς 
ζόης, καταφυγὴ αἱρετωτάτη τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ γέγονε. 


30 ANTITHESIS IN ATTIC ORATORS, ANTIPHON TO ISAEUS 


examples show, are usually found in conjunction with antithetical 
adverbs or prepositional phrases.!® 

The frequency of these two forms of contrast (οὐκ---ἀλλά and μᾶλλον ἤ) 
indicates a high or low tension of the antithetic style. In Isocrates, 
words thus connected are more numerous and more closely joined than 
in other authors. Stereotyped phrases (ἔργῳ καὶ ob λόγῳ, οὐκ ἰδίᾳ ἀλλὰ 
δημοσίᾳ, τύχῃ μᾶλλον ἤ γνώμῃ) are frequently and effectively employed 
by all orators, especially Antiphon and Isaeus. The forms are found 
more frequently in those orations which are otherwise most highly 
antithetic—Ant. V; Andoc. [IV]; Lys. XII; Isoc. IV and VIII; Isae. I 
and V. Most of the nouns thus contrasted are added epexegetically, 
as are also the large number of participial attributives. The data are, 
therefore, significant as showing the extent to which this kind of writing 
was employed by the early orators.” 

A related but less common form of contrasting two words or expres- 
sions is that by means of prepositions, particularly ἀντί and ἐκ; e. g., 
(Lys. XXV, 30): ἐκ πενήτων πλούσιοι γεγένηνται . . hb Gare 
μὲν ὁμονοίας ὑποψίαν πρὸς ἀλλήλους πεποιήκασ. ἘΣΎ ΒΝ in Andocides 
and Lysias, and occasionally employed by Isocrates, the form is seldom 
observed in Antiphon or Isaeus.”! 

Lastly, there is the variety of intra-clausal antithesis typified by 
Anaximenes’s illustration of antithesis κατ᾽ ὄνομα--- διδότω γὰρ 6 πλούσιος 
καὶ εὐδαίμων τῷ πένητι Kal ἐνδεεῖ,᾽ and reflected in the τὸ ἐναντίον type, © 
which Hermogenes (II, 236) specifies in order to reject. The antithesis 
is obtained by way of the normal structural relations of the sentence as 
a whole, i. e., when the subject, be it one word or several, is antithetic 
to the object or words within the predicate. Isocrates says (V, 37): 
ai γὰρ ἐν τοῖς παροῦσι καιροῖς εὐεργεσίαι λήθην ἐμποιδυσι τῶν πρότερον εἰς 

19 Infinitives in clausal comparison occur: Ant. V, 73; Lys. XII, 89; [II, 41, 62]; 
Isoc. I, 22; VII, 52; X, 5 bis; XIV, 22; XX, 12; Isae. I, 6; II, 15; X, 1. 

20 This is particularly noticeable in Isocrates: see p. 62. The large number of 
antitheses in γὰρ clauses in all the orators points to the same fact. 

21 ἀντί occurs five times in Andoc. III, 30; see also Lys. XXV, 30; XXVI, 15; 
XXX, 27 ter; [II, 63 bis; XX, 35]; Isoc. VI, 109; ΙΧ, 3, 68; X, 62; XII, 118; cf. also 
Dinarch. I, 111; II, 18; ἐκ: Ant. II, ὃ 9; Lys. I, 4; XIX, 61; XXVII, 9; Isoc. I, 
34; VIII, 124, 125; ΙΧ, 66 ter. Cf. ἀπό Andoc. [IV, 11]; πρός Lys. [II, 24]; Isoc. 
IX, 32 bis; ὑπέρ, Isoc. IV, 99. 

For ἀντί see also Herodot. I, 210; Aeschylus Choeph. 520, Eur. Hel. 311, 1029. 
For ἐκ, cf. Pind. O. XIII, 49 (ἴδιος ἐκ κοινῷ), and Eur. Hel. 102. For antithesis 
between prepositions, see below, note 98, p. 56. 


ANTITHESIS IN ATTIC ORATORS, ANTIPHON TO ISAEUS 31 


ἀλλήλους πεπλημμελημένων. Cf. Ant. III, y 9; Lys. XXXIII, 7, [II, 78]; 
Isoc. II, 14; IV, 50, 63 bis; VI, 99; IX, 7; XIV, 34; XVI, 3. As varieties 
of this general type, we may specify those instances where antithesis 
results 1. By means of a prepositional phrase in the predicate, as 
εἴπερ χρὴ τοὺς εὖ πεπονθότας περὶ τῶν εὖ πεποιηκότων εὔχεσθαι THY ψῆφον 
φέρειν (Lys. XXI, 22); similarly, Ant. II, 64; V, 48; Lys. XIV, 32; [II, 3, 
54) asec: 2, 355 ΠΝ ΠΟΥ ViILN28: VELL, 92, 19. ἜΧΕ 68; XU ΣΙ By 
the use of a dative of means: εἰ δὲ δεῖ τὰ μέλλοντα τοῖς γεγενημένοις τεκμαί- 
ρεσθαι (Isoc. IV, 141; cf. Isoc. I, 35, VI, 59; Dinarch. I, 33); cf. also Ant. 
III, 6 8; Lys. XII, 52; XXIV, 3; Isoc. VI, 59; XII, 24; 3. By predicate 
attributives or appositives, as τοὺς ἀτίμους ἐπιτίμους ἐποιήσατε (Andoc. I, 
80, 107, 109); likewise, Ant. III, y 3; Andoc. [IV, 40]; Lys. XXV, 27; 
Προ νυ 239" VES 15. 

Clausal Aniithesis and Related forms of Contrast. Antithesis is usu- 
ally treated by both ancient and modern writers along with parison, 
paromoion, and paronomasia—the so-called Figures of Parallelism, of 
which antithesis is in most cases the concomitant, and is considered the 
chief. A separate discussion of these would lead beyond the limits 
of this paper, and is unnecessary in view of those already existing.” 
Antiphon, Lysias, and Isocrates more frequently than not elaborate 
their antitheses by one or more of these devices. There are, apart from 
these, certain forms of antithetical writing, which, though related to 
antithesis, cannot be classed as such in the usual restricted sense of the 
term. 

The most common of these forms is that known under the inclusive 
term of Argumentum ex Contrario—a device, according to Gebauer,™ 
by means of which two thoughts are brought into such a relation with 
each other by comparison that to act in a certain way under given cir- 
cumstances (or to fail to act), is represented as absurd or disgraceful, 
A passive form of it represents the speaker as wretched and unworthy 


2 Complementary antithetic prepositions (i. e., governing opposite objects in the 
same clause) occur as follows: ék—eis: Andoc. I, 144; Dinarch. I, 93; πρός---ὑπέρ: 
{Lys. II, 20]; Lycurg. 42. Compare the use of ἀντί (above, n. 21), and the similar 
use of prepositions in clausal antithesis (note 98, p.56). 

3 Cf. Cope on the ‘“‘Sophistic Rhetoric” in the Journal of Classical and Sacred 
Philology, I11, p. 69 ff.; Volkmann, p. 16; Robertson, Robinson (p. 19), etc. Aristotle, 
though adducing no common name for the group, treated them collectively under 
ἀντικειμένη λέξις. 


24 De Hypotacticis εἰ Paratacticis Argumenti ex Contrario Formis, Intr., p. 26. 


32 ANTITHESIS IN ATTIC ORATORS, ANTIPHON TO ISAEUS 


under certain conditions assumed as being present, to suffer any reverse 
or contumely (δεινὰ ἂν παθοίμην ei, etc.). Antiphon says (VI, 32): ὅπου 
yap ἐμοῦ ἐθέλοντος ἐλέγχεσθαι περὶ ὧν ἠτιῶντο οὗτοι μὴ ἤθελον ἐλέγχειν 
εἴ τι ἠδικοῦντο, ἐμὲ μὲν δήπου ἀπέλυον, αὐτοὶ κατὰ σφῶν αὐτῶν μάρτυρες 
ἔγένοντο, ὅτι οὐδὲν δίκαιον οὐδ᾽ ἀληθὲς ἠτιῶντο."5 In one form or another of 
its manifold phases this form of writing abounds in all animated classical 
prose. Among the orators it is particularly common in Lysias and 
Isaeus, owing to the private and controversial character of their speeches. 
Ant. V, Isoc. IV and VIII also contain numerous instances. 

A doubling of the expression is secured by contrasting what did hap- 
pen or has happened with what might or should have happened (εἰ μέν 
--ἐπειδὴ δέ, or νῦν δέ). This kind of parallelism, characterized by the 
Contrary to Fact form of the first clause, is the form of antithesis favored 
by Hermogenes (II, 236; cf. Anon., III, 112).% It is common with 
the orators, and is especially noticeable in Isocrates’s later orations 
(XII and XV).?” 

A quasi-antithetical expression results from an orator’s effort to 
distinguish between words of similar meaning. The Greek name is 
παραδιαστολή.28 Quintilian (Just. Or. IX, 3, 82) calls the feature of 
style “distinctio,” speaking of it as a fourth kind of antithesis—adding, 
however, that antithesis is not always subjoined. Thus Isocrates dis- 
tinguished between φιλόκαλος and καλλωπιστῆς : εἶναι βούλου τὰ περὶ THY 
ἐσθῆτα φιλόκαλος, ἀλλὰ μὴ καλλωπιστής" ἔστι δὲ φιλόκαλος μὲν τὸ μεγαλοτ-᾿ 
ρεπές, καλλοπιστοῦ δὲ τὸ περίεργον (I, 27). Similarly, Andoc. ΠῚ, 11 


35 The forms of the Argument from Contraries are so numerous and subtle that 
extended references have been omitted: see Gebauer, op. cit. 


26 Compare the form of antithesis in Aeschin. ITI, 188: εἰ τοῦτ᾽ ἔχει καλῶς, ἐκεῖνο 
αἰσχρῶς" εἰ ἐκεῖνοι κατ᾽ ἀξίαν ἐτιμήθησαν, οὗτος ἀνάξιος ὧν στεφανοῦται. Cf. also Lys. 
XII, 57. 

Conditional sentences (not hypothetical) are included among the regular forms of 
subordinate clausal antithesis noted below in the several orators. 


27 ἐπειδὴ δέ in the second member occurs Ant. V, 55; Lys. III, 21; XII, 26; XX XIII; 
4; Isoc. XIV, 3; etc. viv dé, Ant. V, 1, 38, 69; Lys. III, 31; VII, 12, 15; XXII, 17; 
XXIV, 8; XXV, 5, 19; XXX, 8; Isoc. VII, 58; VIII, 36; X, 2, 10, 21; XII, 85, 149, 
207, 245; XV, 1, 15, 17, 55, 87, 92, 146, 153, 176, 231, 241; Isae, I. 30; II, 42; IV, 18, 
30; VI, 2; VIII, 20; X, 1; XI, 5, 6; XII, 8. 

35 Rutilius Lupus (Halm, Rhetores Latini, p. 5) thus defines it: Hoc schema plures 
res aut dua, quae videntur unam vim habere, distinguit et quantum distet docet, suam 
cuique propriam sententiam subjungendo. Quintilian (IX, 3, 65) mentions the Greek 
name and adds: Quod totum pendet ex finitione ideoque an figura dubito. 


ANTITHESIS IN ATTIC ORATORS, ANTIPHON TO ISAEUS 33 


(ἐιρήνη--- σπονδαί); Isoc. 1, 20 (φιλοπροσηγορία---εὐπροσηγορία), 28 (χρήματα 
πκτήματα); IV, 130 (κατηγορεῖν---νουθετεῖν); VIII, 91 (ἄρχειν---τυραννεῖν); 
X, 15 (ἀπολογεῖσθαι---ἐπαινεῖν).39 

Another form of balanced clause is ἀντιμεταβολή---ἃ, using of the 
same terms in the second member of a parallelism with their relative 
syntactical order inverted.*® The terms may or may not be antithetical. 
Antiphon says (V, 84—VI, 47): καὶ of μὲν ἄλλοι ἄνθρωποι τοῖς ἔργοις τοὺς 
λόγους ἐλέγχουσιν, οὗτοι δὲ τοῖς λόγοις τὰ ἔργα ζητοῦσιν ἄπιστα καθιστάναι. 
Similarly, Isoc. 1,32: δόξῃ μὲν χρήματα κτητά, δόξα δὲ χρημάτων οὐκ 
ὠνητή. Other instances are Ant. Ν, 14—VI, 2 (νόμοι---λόγοι); Andoc. 
III, 35, 36 (εἰρήνη---πόλεμος): Lys. XXV, 27 (ὀλιγαρχία---δημοκρατία); 
[XX, 10] (πονηροί--χρηστοί). Virtual ἀντιμεταβολή occurs Lys. XIII, 
96; Isoc. I, 47; VIII, 108; IX, 45, 65. 

A few varieties of clausal antithesis may be specified on the ground 
that they are slightly abnormal. ἀντιμεταβολή (when the terms are 
antithetical) is one. Another is that in which the second member of an 
antithesis states the contrast in a continuative form (being joined to 
the first by καί or οὔτε), instead of the more usual adversative (uév—ée), 
as ὥστε τοὺς φρονίμους ἀτυχεῖν Kal τοὺς ἀνοήτους κατορθοῦν (Isoc. IV, 48),*? or 
Ant. V, 5: οὐ γὰρ δίκαιον οὔτ᾽ ἔργῳ ἁμαρτόντα διὰ ῥήματα σωθῆναι, οὔτ᾽ 
ἔργῳ ὀρθῶς πράξαντα διὰ ῥήματα ἀπολέσθαι. This type of antithesis is 
frequently met with in the orators.* 


29 Words of similar meaning are sometimes contrasted by μᾶλλον ἤ; ci. καινότατα 
μᾶλλον ἤ Kaxoupyérara (Ant. V, 5), also Ant. VI, 1; Isoc. VI, 24. οὐκ--ἀλλά is 
similarly used, Ant. IV, 8 2; Isoc. I, 5; XI, 44. 

30 ὅταν ἐν τῷ πρώτῳ τῆς περιόδου τοῖς αὐτοῖς ὀνόμασι χρησώμεθα, τὰ ἐν ἀρχῇ τιθέντα 
ἐπὶ ταύτης ἀπολίπωμεν, ὡς Ἰσωκράτης : ‘ols μὲν γὰρ ἔγὼ δεινός οὐχ ὁ παρὼν καιρός, οἷς δ᾽ 
ὁ νῦν καιρός, οὐκ ἔγὼ δεινός᾽ (Alexander, III, 37). 

31 Cf. Agathon (Frag. 6): τέχνη τύχην ἔστερξε καὶ τύχη τέχνην. See also Herodotus 
I, 5 (μεγάλα-σμικρά), III, 72 (Adyos-épyor). 

“You sought the new world in the old, 
I found the old world in the new.” 
—Lowell, An Invitation. 

32 This is one of several such examples found among Aristotle’s illustrations of an- 
tithesis; for the identical form, cf. Andoc. [IV, 5]; Isae. V, 4. The force of μέν---δέ is 
often virtually continuative, as in Ant. II, y 11; V, 5; Andoc. I, 144-145; Lys. XVI, 
18; XX XIII, 6; Isoc. IV, 89; etc. 

5. Ὁ Ἀπ| EE 61> Π|Ι 6:6, 7) 1: Ε΄ δ᾽; Andoc. [LV,5, 12.359} 41]: Lys. VEL, 43; 
SOSA ee 10: XT, 20: NEV) ὁ: oe EX 11. ΧΧΧΥ 30: [TT 6977s EX, 14]; 
TIsoc, 1.31. 42. 44: ΠῚ 7 bis; VIE, 30; EX, 32; XV, 255 bis, 256; Isae. IL, 10; V,.21; 
VII, 30; VII, 1. 


34 ANTITHESIS IN ATTIC ORATORS, ANTIPHON ΤΟ ISAEUS 


Again, there is that variety wherein the objects contrasted (i. e., the 
main terms of the antithesis, the grammatical subjects of the opposed 
clauses) are not themselves inherently antithetical, but serve as a nucleus 
for antithetical statements, as οὗτοι μὲν yap ἐν τῷ πολέμῳ EK πενήτων 
πλούσιοι γεγόνασιν ἐκ τῶν ὑμετέρων, ὑμεῖς δὲ διὰ τούτους πένητες (Lys. XXV II, 
9). Whereas, normally, the objects of contrast are antonyms (φίλοι-- 
ἐχθροί, γη-θάλαττα, etc.), οὗτος μέν and ὑμεῖς δέ are here made antithetical 
only by the phenomena of contrast (πλούσιοι, πένητες). The main 
terms in this type of antithesis are proper nouns, or personal or demon- 
strative pronouns.* It is a species of the same variety where the sub- 
jects of the two antithetic clauses are identical.® 

The evolution of the forms of clausal antithesis from the plane of 
mere contrast probably began with the negative form: καὶ ὁ μέν ἐστι 
φανερὸς ἐκβὰς ἐκ τοῦ πλοίου Kal οὐκ εἰσβὰς πάλιν" ἔγὼ δὲ TO παράπαν οὐκ 
ἐξέβην ἐκ τοῦ πλοίου τῆς νυκτὸς ἐκείνης (Ant. V, 23). The contrast of anto- 
NyMS: τὰ μὲν ἀκούσια τῶν ἁμαρτημάτων ἔχει συγγνώμην, τὰ δὲ ἑκούσια 
οὐκ ἔχει (Ant. V, 92),° and the eliminating of the negative, as εὖ μὲν γὰρ 


#4 Cf. Ant. I, 21, 23, 26; Il, 7 3; IV, 7 3, 4,66, 8; V, 23, 51, 59, 74; Andoc. 5, 6; 
M8: Lys, 10h, Ss 1s ROR 25: Kon 25° (I 14 51) 56) 6 Mik. 17: Diss ΜῊ 
Isoc. I, 19, 50; VIII, 42; TX, 36, 54, 65; XI, 8, 32; XTI, 8; XIV, 54; XXI, 12; Isae. 
V, 39; VII, 12; VIII, 39; X, 1. 

A special variety are the of μὲν ἄλλοι---οὗτος δέ (υμεῖς δὲ) antitheses: Ant. V, 
88 (VI, 47); Andoc. III, 23; Lys. III, 39; XIV, 46; Isoc. XII, 214; XVIII, 66; XX, 9; 
for the form, see also Ant. V, 34, 38; Lys. XXX, 5; Isoc. IX, 13; XV, 16; Isae. ΤΙ, 21. 

% Such antitheses are common in Isocrates, and are occasionally found in the 
other orators. 

The following special forms may be noted: (1) those in which the first member 
contains προσποιέω (κελεύω or φημί): Ant. VI, 7; Andoc. III, 27; Lys. XIII, 28; 
Isoc. VIII, 121; X, 4; XII, 141; XIII, 1, 7-8; XIX, 33; (2) the οὐκ---ἀλλά clausal 
antitheses: Ant. I, 22; ITI, ὃ 9; V, 14 (VI, 2), 94; Andoc. [IV] 36; Lys. I, 21, 29, 47; 
XII, 1, 93; XIV, 10, 33; XVI, 19; XVIII, 19 bis; XXIV, 16 ter; XXV, 13 bis; XXVI, 
3; BOS VIL, 11: ΧΧΙΧ Δ KOK 245 SORT 8.}Π| 8. 56164. Gis Vil aoe pkoka ἢ 
13, 15]; Isoc. I, 39; II, 25, 39; IV, 76; VI, 15, 104; VII, 22; VIII, 23; IX, 7, 23, 45, 60; 
X, 13, 36; XII, 72, 246; Isae. I, 15; 11, 45; ITT, 64; VII, 34, 35, 37; VIII, 4; XI, 21; οὐχ 
ὅπως---ἀλλά: Lys. XXX, 26; Isoc. VIII, 45; XIV, 5; for the form, cf. Lys. XIX, 31; 
Isoc. VII, 32; XI, 5; XII, 270; XIV, 27; Isae. VI, 21. (3) the Temporal antitheses, 
and those in \éyw—épyw, and ἰδίᾳ--κοινῇ (for references, see List of Antithetic Terms). 

% Other instances of the κατάφασις-ἀποφάσει antithesis are Ant. I, 6, 8; IV, 
8 7; V, 51; Andoc. III, 12; Lys. XVIII, 12; XXIX, 9; Isoc. IV, 131; VI, 93; VIII, 4; 
Isae. ITI, 68; V, 39. 

The direct juxtaposition of a denial of the opposite by οὐκ--τἀλλά is characteristic 
of the sophistic rhetoric, and is probably a later form of antithesis. 


ANTITHESIS IN ATTIC ORATORS, ANTIPHON TO ISAEUS 35 


ποιεῖν ἐν ἐκείνῳ τῷ χρόνῳ χαλεπὸν ἦν, ἐξαμαρτάνειν δὲ τῷ βουλομένῳ ‘padrov 
(Lys. XXV, 16), mark successive stages in the development of an- 
tithetical expression. As antithetic writing became more systematic, 
it was natural that every word be made to count either for symmetry 
or cogency of expression, or should be made as unobtrusive as possible. 
Hence arose parison, paronomasia, homoeoteleuton, etc. Repetition 
and the use of synonyms aided the process, synonymous expression 
marking a more highly developed and artistic form of antithetical 
writing. By these means the codrdinate clauses were elaborated to 
the utmost degree of artistic symmetry and pleasing euphony. An 
alternative process was to subordinate one of the antithetical clauses: 
ταῖς Wuxais νικῶντες τοῖς σώμασιν ἀπεῖπον (Isoc. IV, 92).*7 The possi- 
bilities of artistic elaboration here were hardly fewer than with the 
codrdinate clauses, particularly with Lysias and Isocrates. Finally, 
there is the skilful combining of antitheses in one or more of these forms 
into an elaborate period, the effect to be enhanced by the devices of 
intra-clausal antithesis. Antiphon, Lysias, and Isocrates thus developed. 
distinct types of extended antithetic periods. 

The field for the exercise of an author’s ingenuity was alluring, and 
it is little wonder that the formal feature of antithesis was overdeveloped. 
Artificial and defective antitheses are not uncommon in authors fond of 
this kind of writing.*® The abuse led to the reaction noticeable in 
Isocrates’s later orations and in Isaeus. 

The varieties of clausal antithesis just noticed—Codrdinate, Sub- 
ordinate, Extended antitheses or Periodology, and Artificial or Defective 
antithesis,—are constant and convenient τόποι under which to discuss 
distinctive features in the antithetic style of the several orators. 


ANTIPHON 


Antiphon is important in a study of antithesis because he is the first 
of the Attic Orators and among the earliest writers of artistic prose, 
and because his part in the development of the figure is unique. As 
compared with Gorgias, he employs antithesis more judiciously. His 


37 Cf. Lycurg. 48. See also Aeschin. IIT, 218: σὺ δὲ οἶμαι λαβὼν μὲν σεσίγηκας, 
ἀναλώσας δὲ κέκραγας ; and Cic. Cat. 1, 8: De te autem, cum quiescunt, probant—cum 
tacent, clamant. Cf. Andoc. III, 35. 

38 “A perfect antithesis requires that the objects belong to the same generic class, 
though they must be the most widely different of that class.”—D. J. Hill, Op. Cit. 
P3238.) ΟΥ mote 21}: 


36 ANTITHESIS IN ATTIC ORATORS, ANTIPHON TO ISAEUS 


antitheses are more extended, show sharper contrasts, and are more 
clearly designed as an integral part of a well-defined system of writing. 
Linguistic adornment finds place in his writings,*® but on the whole his 
contrasted ideas are invented rather with a view to bringing out the 
argument more forcibly. ‘On the Choregus”’ contains fewer and simpler 
antitheses than the other orations: indeed, as if the orator had been 
content with his previous attainments in that direction, certain an- 
titheses have here been bodily transferred from the ‘Murder of 
Herodes.’”*” 

The antitheses are characteristic of Antiphon’s style in two particulars. 
First, they show a clever use of words in their exact (and sometimes 
arbitrarily limited) meaning,” as in I, 4: obs yap ἐχρῆν τῷ μὲν τεθνεῶτι 
τιμωροὺς γενέσθαι, ἐμοὶ δὲ βοηθούς, οὗτοι τεθνεῶτος φονῆς γεγένηνται, ἐμοὶ 
δ᾽ ἀντίδικοι καθεστᾶσι (Cf. τιμωρία---ἁμαρτία καὶ ἀσέβεια, V, 88); similarly, 
ἐκ προβουλῆς ἐκ προνοίας, I, 5 (Cf. τύχη---πρόνοια, V, 6, Herodotus VIII, 
87); ὑπερορῶ--ὀρροδῶ, III, γ 4 (Cf. δεδιὼς--πιστεύων, II, 6 1), yuoun—éopyn 
(V, 69; cf. V, 12, and ἀλήθεια-ὀργή, Lycurg. 116). Words of similar 
sound are opposed in order to show their contrasted meaning: viv μὲν 
οὖν γνωρισταὶ γίγνεσθε τῆς δίκης, τότε δὲ δικασταὶ τῶν μαρτύρων᾽ νῦν μὲν 
δοξασταὶ, τότε δὲ κριταὶ τῶν ἀληθῶν (V, 94); in like manner, ἁμαρτία--- 
ἀτυχία (IV, γ 4), δυνάμενον---βουλόμενον (V, 73), etc. A form distinctly 
Antiphontean is the contrast of two words by the use of εἰμί and the 
predicate genitive: τὸ μὲν yap ἀκούσιον ἁμάρτημα ὦ ἄνδρες τῆς τύχης Earl, ᾿ 
τὸ δὲ ἑκούσιον τῆς γνώμης (V, 92); cf. ITI, B 2; ΙΝ,γ 4; V, 5, 94.5 

Again, Antiphon’s antitheses characterize his style by their periodic 
formation.** A veritable architect in this particular, he fashioned a 
more symmetrical and coherent period than that of Gorgias, and set a 
mark for Lysias and Isocrates. Two types may be distinguished. 


39 Noticeable in the Telralogies, particularly in III, y 3-4, and in the proémium 
to the ‘‘ Murder of Herodes.”’ 

40 Compare V, 14 with VI, 2; V, 84 with VI, 28, 47; V, 88-89 with VI, 6. 

4 Cf. Mueller, Hist. Gr. Lit. 115, 133 ff., Blass, Att. Bered. II, Ὁ. 141. 


“ Blass remarks (I, 140) that Isocrates would have developed the symmetry of 
these clauses more fully. 

The concepts ἀτυχία, ἀδικία, ἀλήθεια, γνώμη, τύχη, are a kind of stock in trade 
for Antiphon in his contrasts. 

There is a noticeable juggling with the meaning of ἀκούσιος in III, ὃ 8: ὀρθῶς yap καὶ 
δικαίως τοὺς ἀκουσίως ἀποκτείναντας ἀκουσίοις παθήμασι κολάζει, and the same in ΠῚ, y 7. 

4 Cf, Belling. 


ANTITHESIS IN ATTIC ORATORS, ANTIPHON TO ISAEUS 37 


Of the one, the framework is a single contrast (οὗτος μὲν---οὗτος δέ, or the 
like); each part of the contrast is made to yield as many antitheses as 
possible. The following is one of Antiphon’s most elaborate (III, γ 3): 
τοσοῦτον δὲ προέχων ἐν τοῖς λόγοις ἡμῶν, ἔτι δὲ ἐν οἷς ἔπρασσε πολλαπλάσια 
τούτων, οὗτος μὲν οὐχ ὁσίως δεῖται ὑμῶν συχνῶς τὴν ἀπολογίαν ἀποδέχεσθαι 
αὐτοῦ" ἔγὼ δὲ δράσας μὲν οὐδὲν κακόν, παθὼν δὲ ἄθλια καὶ δεινά, καὶ νῦν ἔτι 
δεινότερα τούτων ἔργῳ, καὶ οὐ λόγῳ εἰς τὸν ὑμέτερον ἔλεον καταπεφευγὼς δέομαι 
ὑμῶν, ὦ ἄνδρες ἀνοσίων ἔργων τιμωροί, ὁσίων δὲ διαγνώμονες, μὴ ἔργα φανερὰ 
ὑπὸ πονηρᾶς λόγων ἀκριβείας πεισθέντας, ψευδὴ τὴν ἀλήθειαν τῶν πραχθέντων 
ἡγήσασθαι. It will be noticed that the subjects and objects of the 
members are mutually antithetical (οὗτος wey . . . . -. ἐγὼ δέ) 
likewise the modifiers of the subjects, and those of the verb. Moreover, 
the modifiers of the subject, verb, and object of the second member are 
doubly antithetical (i. e., within themselves, by means of minor contrasts 
and antithetical terms). There is abundant triple paronomasia, chiefly 
in ν and s: τοῖς---λόγοις--οἷς ; προέχων --τούτων ὑμῶν ; ἄθλια---δεινά--- 
δεινότερα ; πονηρᾶς ἀκριβείας---πεισθέντας : λέγων---τῶν---πραχθέντων. Of 
similar construction, and breaking up characteristically into four members, 
is the antithesis in I, 23: δεήσεται δ᾽ ὑμῶν οὗτος μὲν ὑπὲρ τῆς μητρὸς τῆς 
αὑτοῦ ζώσης, τῆς ἐκεῖνον διαχρησαμένης ἀβούλως τε καὶ ἀθεῶς, ὅπως δίκην 
μὴ δῷ, ἂν ὑμᾶς πείθῃ, ὧν ἠδίκηκε᾽ ἔγὼ δ᾽ ὑμᾶς ὑπὲρ πατρὸς τ᾽ οὐμοῦ τεθνεῶτος 
αἰτοῦμαι, ὅπως παντὶ τρόπῳ δῷ. The principal antithesis lies in the par- 
ticiples and in the subordinate clauses. Parison is carefully maintained 
in minor clause and in prepositional phrase, and the alternate par- 
onomasia adds to the effect of the studied symmetry. Other periods 
of the same general construction occur IJ, 6 9; IV, y 2; V, 2. 


Another and probably later type of period is that where the thought 
is elaborated by a progressive series of clever antitheses, as in V, 73: 
Ev δὲ ἴστε ὅτι ἔλεηθηναι ὑφ᾽ ὑμῶν ἄξιός εἰμι μᾶλλον ἢ δίκην δοῦναι" δίκην 
μὲν γὰρ εἰκός ἐστι διδόναι τοὺς ἀδικοῦντας, ἐλεεῖσθαι δὲ τοὺς ἀδίκως κινδυνεύον- 
τας. κρεῖσσον δὲ χρὴ γίγνεσθαι ἀεὶ τὸ ὑμέτερον δυνάμενον ἐμὲ δικαίως 
σώζειν, ἢ τὸ τῶν ἐχθρῶν βουλόμενον ἀδίκως με ἀπολλῦναι. ἐν μὲν γὰρ 
τῷ ἐπισχεῖν ἐστι τὰ δεινὰ ταῦτα ποιῆσαι ἃ οὗτοι κελεύουσιν ἐν δὲ τῷ 
παραχρῆμα οὐκ ἔστιν ἀρχὴν ὀρθῶς βουλεύεσθαι. We have first the μᾶλλον ἤ 
statement introducing the second antithesis; lastly, the concluding 
yap antithesis. A similar type of period occurs IV, 6 6; V, 5, 91. 


Turning more specifically to characteristics of the individual antith- 
eses, we find that Antiphon employed a number of antitheses in which 


38 ANTITHESIS IN ATTIC ORATORS, ANTIPHON ΤῸ ISAEUS 


each clause contains three words opposed to as many in the other; cf. 
I, 5; III, y 4; IV, y 2; V, 3,73. Over twice as many contain two opposed 
wordsineach clause: II, vy 11, ὃ 11; III, 6 2,8,y 11; V,5, 13, 48, 86, 89, 91, 
94 bis; the number of those containing a single ἐναντίον in each clause 
is proportionately larger. The ratio throughout is not markedly differ- 
ent from that which obtains in the clausal antitheses of Lysias and Isoc- 
rates. The antithesis is sometimes partly implied, hence the number of 
explicitly antithetic words in each clause would not accurately gauge 
the antithetic value or intensity: τοῖς μὲν μαρτυροῦσιν ἀπιστεῖν ὑμᾶς 
κελεύουσι, τοῖς δὲ λόγοις ods αὐτοὶ λέγουσι πιστεύειν φασὶ χρῆναι (V, 84—VI, 
28; cf. Lys. VII, 33, and μαρτυροῦσι μᾶλλον ἢ κατηγοροῖς, Isae. XII, 8).4 
These range from those instances where in one of the clauses the corre- 
sponding antonym is paraphrased (as in the above example, or ὀρθῶς 
γνῶτε-Ψευσθῆτε, V, 46) to those in which two corresponding members 
of the antithesis express opposite thought without trace of antonyms 
(e. g., V, 35). Partly implied antitheses occur I, 26; IV, a 1, y 3, 4; 
is oe Nas 

The breaking up of an antithesis into a certain number of principal 
and subordinate clauses, correspondingly antithetical, is characteristic 
of Antiphon, and is seldom noticed in other orators; cf. V, 2: οὗ μὲν yap με 
ἔδει κακοπαθεῖν τῷ σώματι μετὰ τῆς αἰτίας τῆς οὐ προσηκούσης, ἐνταυθοῖ οὐδέν 
με ὠφέλησεν ἡ ἐμπειρία. οὗ δὲ με δεῖ σωθῆναι μετὰ τῆς ἀληθείας εἰπόντα 
τὰ γενόμενα, ἐν τούτῳ με βλάπτει ἡ τοῦ λέγειν ἀδυναμία." 8686 also I, 23; Π1,. 
y 4, 11; IV, y 3, 4, 6 6; V, 3, 5, 7,46. While Antiphon confined himself 
mainly to the opposition of coérdinate clauses, one clause of an antith- 
esis is not infrequently subordinated. The subordinate clause may be 
1. Relative: ἃ μὲν οὖν μετὰ τῆς πόλεως ὅλης ἀνάγκῃ μᾶλλον ἢ γνώμῃ 
ἔπραξε, τούτων οὐ δίκαιός ἐστιν ὁ ἐμὸς πατὴρ ἰδίᾳ δίκην διδόναι (V, 79),* cf. I, 
4; V, 13,94; VI,7,47;2. Participial: παραινῶ ὑμῖν, μὴ τὸν ἀναίτιον καταλ- 
αβόντας τὸν αἴτιον ἀφεῖναι (II, ὃ 11), also III, y 9: IV, y 1: V, 17; 3. Com- 
parative: πολλῷ ἂν ὑμεῖς δικαιότερον ἐκρίνεσθε ἢ ἔγὼ νῦν φεύγω ὑφ᾽ ὑμῶν 
ἀδίκως (V, 48), and I, 27; III, ὃ 5; V, 3, 18, 73. A direct antithesis of 

44 One word is often balanced against two; see I, 27; I, 6 1, 9; III, 8 8; V, 3; VI, 8. 

The use of the negative antonym (οὐδὲν ὠφέλησεν) suggests a false antithesis 
to βλάπτει. Cf. Lys. XXX, 16 (μηδεμίαν τιμωρίαν ποιήσασθε), Isoc. XII, 31 (μὴ λίαν 
ἡττομένους), Demosth. XXIII, 193 (μὴ παθεῖν). 

Cf. ἴδιος----πόλις, II, 6 11, and Lys. XXXI, 10; also, τὸ κοινὸν---ἴδιος (V, 13). 
See ἰδίᾳ-κοινῇἢῇ Andoc. III, 27; these are the only instances of the ἴδιος---κοινός 
antithesis in the orators before Lysias and Isocrates (excepting those in Andoc. IV). 





ANTITHESIS IN ATTIC ORATORS, ANTIPHON ΤΟ ISAEUS 39 


two subordinate clauses (mainly participial) is not uncommon: οὔτε κατασ- 
χόντες εἰς TO χωρίον τοῦτο ἀπὸ παρασκευῆς οὐδεμίας, ἀλλ᾽ ἀνάγκῃ χρησάμενοι 
(VW, 22): similarly, FT, 5: ΠῚ δ 1 0, 83,714 bis 6 9; V, 84 (—VI, 28). 

Artificial or defective antithesis. This kind of writing is not so exten- 
sive or so noticeable in Antiphon as in Gorgias. Words are sometimes 
added for the sake of symmetry, asin IV, y 2: τοὺς μὲν yap ἥ τε μεγαλο- 
φροσύνη τοῦ γένους ἥ τε ἀκμὴ τῆς ῥώμης ἥ TE ἀπειρία τῆς μέθης ἐπαίρει τῷ 
θύμῳ χαρίζεσθαι, τοὺς δὲ ἥ τε ἐμπειρία τῶν παροινουμένων ἥ τε ἀσθένεια 
τοῦ “γήρως ἥ τε δύναμις τῶν νέων φοβοῦσα σωφρονίζει, where δύναμις 
etc., is added merely to balance peyadoppootyn—the chiasm, antithesis, 
and alternate paronomasia between the other terms not appearing in 
these; similarly, ἀτρεμίζειν, in 11,69. In V, 59, the antithesis between 
davepay and ἀφανεῖ is strained: ἐγὼ μὲν yap σοῦ φανερὰν τὴν πρόνοιαν 
εἰς ἐμὲ ἀποδείκνυμι, σὺ δ᾽ ἐμὲ ἐν ἀφανεῖ λόγῳ ζητεῖς ἀπολέσαι. Similarly, 
κοινόν- -ἰδίᾳ, in V, 13, and axovovos—éxovows in I, 26 and I, Ὑ 1; 
IV, ὃ 8 (cf. III, y 7,68). The λόγος---ἔργον antithesis in HI, y 3 seems 
strained when, speaking of the length of his opponent’s speech, he says 
τοσοῦτον δὲ προέχων ἐν τοῖς λόγοις ἡμῶν, ἔτι δὲ ἐν οἷς ἔπρασσε πολλαπλάσια 
τούτων. Again, the antithesis implied by the terms (λόγος--- ἔργον) 
is nil in ITI, ὃ 5: θέλω δὲ μὴ πρότερον ἐπ᾿ ἄλλον λόγον ὁρμῆσαι, ἢ TO ἔργον 
ἔτι φανερώτερον καταστῆσαι, ὁποτέρου αὐτῶν ἐστί. The terms τύχη-- 
ἀτυχία convey a false antithesis in IV, ὃ ὃ: ὁ μὲν γὰρ ἀκουσίως πάντα δράσας 
καὶ παθὼν ἀλλοτρίᾳ τύχῃ κέχρηται" ὁ δὲ ἑκουσίως πάντα δράσας, ἐκ τῶν 


αὑτοῦ ἔργων τὴν τύχην προσαγαγόμενος, τῇ αὑτοῦ ἀτυχίᾳ ἥμαρτεν. 


47 Cf. Thucy. II, 40, 2: μὴ προδιδαχθῆναι μᾶλλον λόγῳ πρότερον ἢ ἐπὶ ἃ δεῖ ἔργῳ ἐλθεῖν. 
Similarly, Lys. 1, 21: εγὼ γὰρ οὐδὲν δέομαι λόγων, ἀλλὰ τὸ ἔργον φανερὸν γενέσθαι, κτλ. 
For the transition antithesis, cf. Ant. V, 25: τὰ μὲν γενόμενα ταῦτ᾽ ἐστίν" ἐκ δὲ τούτων 
ἤδη σκοπεῖτε τὰ εἰκότα. 

48 Tf the mere corresponding position of two words in antithetic clauses be taken 
as an indication of false antithesis, we should have one between ἀσεβεῖ and συγχεῖ 
in IV, a 2: ἀσεβεῖ μὲν περὶ τοὺς θεούς, συγχεῖ δὲ τὰ νόμιμα τῶν ἀνθρώπων. But this is 
not always a sure indication > cf. IV, y 4: ὁ μὲν γὰρ ἐξ ὧν ἔδρασεν ἐκεῖνος διαφθαρείς, ob 
τῇ ἑαυτοῦ ἁμαρτίᾳ ἀλλὰ τῇ τοῦ πατάξαντος χρησάμενος ἀπέθανεν" ὁ δὲ μείζω ὧν ἤθελε 
πράεας, τῇ ἑαυτοῦ ἀτυχία ὃν οὐκ ἤθελεν ἀπέκτεινεν: duaptia—aruxia is not a false 
antithesis here because the speaker has just pointed out the distinction between 
ἀτυχία and συμφορά; τῇ ἑαυτοῦ ἁμαρτίᾳ is here obviously a variant for συμφορά ; 
hence, there is a real distinction meant between ἀτυχία and ἁμαρτία. Similarly, in 
the above example, ἀσεβεῖ and συγχεῖ are merely the appropriate terms for θεούς and 
νόμιμα. See above note 21, p. 7. 


40 ANTITHESIS IN ATTIC ORATORS, ANTIPHON ΤΟ ISAEUS 


ANDOCIDES 


The paratactic sentence-structure of Andocides, and the ever recur- 
ring parentheses are ill-adapted for the studied artifices of the sophistic 
rhetoric. Formal antitheses are rare in the first two orations. Rhetor- 
ical design is doubtful. The contrasts express little more than what is 
naturally inherent in the language. Parallelism is secured by contrast- 
ing an imaginary but impossible course of action with the actual and 
only possible course, by opposing past to present, and by comparing the 
ostensible motives of the accusers with the real ones. This is to employ 
the type of antithesis mentioned by Hermogenes (Spengel II, 236). 
Antiphon first brought rhetoric from theory into practice; Andocides 
was untainted by the sophistic rhetoric, unaffected by theories of style. 
If he used antithetical expressions, it was the natural result of an effort 
to express himself forcibly. The loose sentence-structure of the first 
two orations becomes more consecutive and periodic in the third. In the 
latter oration, accordingly, we find better formed antitheses. Less 
rigid than Antiphon’s, they are better adapted for popular discourse; 
although few in number, they are effectively used, and foreshadow later 
types of construction. 

Typical of Andocides’s early style is the effort at antithetical phrase- 
ology in De Myst. 57-59, where the orator is trying to justify his con- 
duct as an informant in the Hermae matter: τί ἂν ὑμῶν ἕκαστος ἐποίησεν ; 
εἰ μὲν yap ἦν δυοῖν τὸ ἕτερον ἑλέσθαι, ἢ καλῶς ἀπολέσθαι ἢ αἰσχρῶς σωθῆναι, 
ἔχοι ἄν τις εἰπεῖν κακίαν εἶναι τὰ γενόμενα. A parenthesis follows: καίτοι 
πολλοὶ ἂν καὶ τοῦτο εἵλοντο, τὸ ζῆν περὶ πλείονος ποιησάμενοι τοῦ καλῶς 
ἀποθανεῖν. The previous design is then resumed in ὅπου δὲ τούτων τὸ 
ἐναντιώτατον ἦν, σιωπήσαντι μὲν αὐτῷ TE αἴσχιστα ἀπολέσθαι μηδὲν ἀσεβή- 
σαντι thus breaking up into a second antithesis, the thought of which 
is spun out for eight or ten lines until the sentence looses its original 
structure. It is again resumed in 59 and carried through: ταῦτα μὲν 
οὖν ἦν ἐμοῦ μὴ εἰπόντος" εἰπὼν δὲ τὰ ὄντα αὐτός TE ἐσῳζόμην Kal τὸν πατέρα 
ἔσῳζον καὶ τοὺς ἄλλους συγγενεῖς, καὶ τὴν πόλιν ἐκ φόβου καὶ κακῶν τῶν 
μεγίστων ἀπήλλαττον. 

More successful is the effort in I, 144-145: εἰδότα μὲν οἷόν ἐστι πόλεως 
τοιαύτης πολίτην εἶναι, εἰδότα δὲ οἷόν ἐστι ξένον εἶναι καὶ μέτοικον ἐν TH 


τῶν πλησίον, ἐπιστάμενον δὲ οἷον τὸ σωφρονεῖν καὶ ὀρθῶς βουλεύεσθαι, 


ANTITHESIS IN ATTIC ORATORS, ANTIPHON TO ISAEUS 41 


ἐπιστάμενον δ᾽ οἷον τὸ ἁμαρτόντα πρᾶξαι κακῶς, εἰς. Again, in I,6, he says 
οἱ μὲ γὰρ ἐκ πολλοῦ χρόνον ἐπιβουλεύσαντες καὶ συνθέντες, αὐτοὶ ἄνευ 
κινδύνων ὄντες, τὴν κατηγορίαν ἐποιήσαντο᾽ ἔγὼ δὲ μετὰ δέους καὶ κινδύνου 
καὶ διαβολῆς τῆς μεγίστης τὴν ἀπολογίαν ποιοῦμαι.59 

The σῶμα---γνώμη antithesis in II, 24 is one of Andocides’s best: εἰ γὰρ 
ὅσα of ἄνθρωποι TH Ὑνώμῃ ἁμαρτάνουσι, TO σῶμα αὐτῶν μὴ αἴτιόν ἐστιν, 
ἐμοῦ τὸ μὲν σῶμα τυγχάνει ταὐτὸν ἔτι ὄν, ὅπερ τῆς αἰτίας ἀπήλλακται, ἡ δὲ 
γνώμη ἀντὶ τῆς προτέρας ἑτέρα νυνὶ παρέστηκεν." 

Antithetic periods, or a succession of antitheses around a single 
theme, are more common in Andocides than single instances, as in III, 28: 
ἔγὼ μὲν οὖν ἐκεῖνο δέδοικα μάλιστα, ὦ ᾿Αθηναῖοι, τὸ εἰθισμένον κακόν, ὅτι 
τοὺς κρείττους φίλους ἀφιέντες ἀεὶ τοὺς ἥττους αἱρούμεθα," καὶ πόλεμον 
ποιούμεθα du’ ἑτέρους, ἐξὸν δι᾿ ἡμᾶς αὐτοὺς εἰρήνην ἄγειν. Similarly, III, 
1. .90}15 

The fourth oration is much more highly antithetic than the genuine 
speeches of Andocides.** While it has about the same number of 1) (1 an- 


49 A feature of expression peculiarly Andocidean in its pathos is that where the 
fourth member of a parallelism designedly repeats and emphasizes the thought of 
the second: καὶ ὅμως τό ye δυστυχέστατος εἶναι ἀνθρώπων οὐδαμῇ ἐκφεύγω, ὅτε δὴ προαγο- 
μένης μὲν τῆς πόλεως ἐπὶ ταύτας τὰς συμφορὰς οὐδεὶς ἐμοῦ ἤρχετο γίγνεσθαι δυσδαιμονέστε- 
ρος, μεθισταμένης δὲ πάλιν εἰς τὸ ἀσφαλὲς ἁπάντων ἔγὼ ἀθλιώτατος (II, 9). Cf. II, 
16, and Ant. V, 2; Lys. XIII, 2; XVIII, 8; Isoc. IV, 124; V, 68; VI, 5; XVII, 10. 

50 Almost the identical antithesis occurs Lys. XIX, 3. Cf. Ant. VI, 7; Hyperid. 
Λυκοφ. 8, etc. 

Dryden, in his postscript to his Translations of Vergil, says: “What Virgil wrote in 
the vigor of his age, in plenty and at ease, I have undertaken to translate in my de- 
clining years; struggling with wants, oppressed with sickness, curbed in my genius, 
liable to be misunderstood in all I write.” 

51 Cf. Isoc. XVI, 50 (τἀναντία---τὴν αὐτήν). Other antitheses with two words 
in each member opposed are I, 6, 53, 145; ITI, 1, 17, 28 bis. 


52 For the terms of the antithesis, cf. III, 23; also, Ant. II, 8 11; IV, a 1; Isoc. 
IV, 53. See also Isoc. VI, 64. 


53 TIT, 30 is a succession of antitheses formed by means of ἀντί; cf. I, 93: ἀντὶ μὲν 
φυγάδος πολίτης, ἀντὶ δὲ ἀτίμου συκοφάντης See also éx—eis, I, 144. 

54 Τῇ dealing with spurious orations I have endeavored to give any indications as to 
authorship which the antitheses seem to show, and to point out antithetic peculiari- 
ties which the orations in general possess. 

References to spurious orations, when given among other data, are enclosed in 
square brackets []. In the following pages two numbers juxtaposed in half-brackets, 
as 1) (1, 2) (2, 3) (3, etc., indicate the number of opposed words in each member of 
the antithesis. 


42 ANTITHESIS IN ATTIC ORATORS, ANTIPHON TO ISAEUS 


titheses as Andoc. III, it has as many 2) (2 antitheses as are found in 
the three Andocidean orations together (Cf. IV, 4, 5, 9, 16, 21, 27 bis, 
36, 41). The direct antithesis of two subordinate (participial) clauses of 
equal rank, as τοῦ μὲν ὀνόματος φροντίζοντας, τοῦ δὲ πράγματος ἀμελοῦντας 
(IV, 27), occurs frequently in this oration (16, 21, 27 bis, 36); common 
in Lysias and Isocrates, the form occurs but once in Andocides (III, 6). 
Synonyms are freely used in order to gain symmetry of expression in 
the members. There is hardly one of the antitheses in this oration in 
which homoeoteleuton, parison or paronomasia are not one or all to be 
observed.® These features are foreign to Andocides’s style, and, together 
with the treatment of special topics in the discourse, indicate a late 
sophist as the author.* Many resemblances point to Lysias as the model. 

The speech opens with an οὐκ---ἀλλά expression (cf. also IV, 36, 
42), which is rarely met with in Andocides. The speaker then con- 
tinues (IV, 1): πολίτου δὲ ἀγαθοῦ νομίζω προκινδυνεύειν ἐθέλειν τοῦ πλήθους, 
καὶ μὴ καταδείσαντα τὰς ἔχθρας τὰς ἰδίας ὑπὲρ τῶν δημοσίων ἔχειν ἡσυχίαν᾽ 
διὰ δὲ μὲν τοὺς τῶν ἰδίων ἐπιμελουμένους οὐδὲν αἱ πόλεις μείζους καθίστανται, 
διὰ δὲ τοὺς τῶν κοινῶν μεγάλαι καὶ ἐλεύθεραι γίγνονται. The homoeoteleu- 
ton (καθίστανται---γίγνονται--) and paronomasia (μεγάλαι καὶ ἐλεύθεραι, 
δημοσίων---ἰδίων----κοινῶν) are conspicuous; similarly, in IV, 2: προθύμων 
μὲν Kal ἀγαθῶν ἀνδρῶν ὑμῶν τυγχάνων, bv’ ὅπερ σῷζομαι, πλείστοις δὲ Kal 
δεινοτάτοις ἐχθροῖς χρώμενος, ὑφ ὧν διαβάλλομαι (Cf. Ant. V, 46). 

ὥστε οὐ περὶ τῶν παρεληλυθότων ἀδικημάτων αὐτὸν τιμωροῦνται, ἀλλ᾽ 
ὑπὲρ τῶν μελλόντων φοβοῦνται (IV, 36) resembles Lys. XV, 9: εὖ εἰδότες 
ὅτι ὑπὲρ τῶν παρεληλυθότων ὀλίγους τιμωρησάμενοι πολλοὺς ποιήσετε κοσ- 


μιωτέρους." ὃ 


LysIAS 


In contrast with that of Antiphon, it was seen that Andocides’s 
use of antithesis was dictated by natural impulse rather than by a pre- 


MCL LV wire δὲ don Ola the GO! 

56 Cf. Blass, I, p. 338. 

57 The ἴδιος---κοινός antithesis (cf. IV, 1, 4, 11, 18, 42) is found but once in Ando- 
cides (III, 27); it is common in Lysias (cf. ἴδιος---δημόσιος, XXI, 15, 19; XXV, 25), 
and in Isocrates. 

58 Cf. Lysias XXII, 20; XXXI, 24; XXXTII, 6. 

With IV, 5: οἶμαι δὲ καὶ rods φίλους ὑμῶν ἐν ταύτῃ μάλιστα TH ἡμέρᾳ λυπεῖσθαι Kal 
τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ἥδεσθαι, cf. Lys. XIV, 42: (ἀισχύνεσθαι---φιλοτιμεῖσθαι); and Isoc. LX, 32 
(ἐχθροὺς----φίλοις). With ἐλλείπειν---ὑπερβάλλειν (IV, 4), cf. διαφέρειν---ἐλλέιπειν, Lys. 
[II, 4]. For πολεμίους---συμμάχους (IV, 41), cf. Lys. [II, 10], Isoc. IV, 152. 


ANTITHESIS IN ATTIC ORATORS, ANTIPHON TO ISAEUS 43 
conceived theory (φύσει μᾶλλον ἢ νόμῳ, as Isocrates would express it). 
Lysias holds a middle ground. The characteristic simplicity of his 
style, and the habitual avoidance of figures yield to his love of antithesis 
and parallelism.*® His style is not fundamentally antithetic like that of 
Antiphon or Isocrates. He systematically employed synonyms in devel- 
oping a regular symmetry in the members of his antitheses; in this he 
resembled Gorgias. And Gorgianic embellishment is not lacking; it is 
only a secondary feature of his style however. The antitheses often 
further the argument and pleasantly relieve the ordinary plainness of 
his writing. The following examples, grouped as far as possible accord- 
ing to the structural form, are intended to give a concrete idea of his 
antithetic style. 

Antitheses with clauses coérdinate: ot τῷ μὲν λόγῳ τῷ δήμῳ πολεμοῦσι, 
τῷ δὲ ἔργῳ τῶν ὑμετέρων ἐπιθυμοῦσιν (XXXIV, 5); τὰ μὲν πόρρω ὑπὸ 
Λακεδαιμονίων ἐτέμνετο, τὰ δ᾽ ἔγγὺς ὑπὸ τῶν φίλων διηρπάζετο (VII, 6);* 
δεινὸν γὰρ ἔμοιγε δοκεῖ εἶναι, εἰ ἐξ ὧν μὲν ἤδη ἡμάρτηκε μηδέποτε τιμωρηθήσε- 
ται, ἐξ ὧν δὲ μέλλει εὖ ποιήσειν ἤδη τετιμήσεται (ΧΧΧΙ, 24; one of Lysias’s 
most complete antitheses). 

Antitheses with one clause subordinate: in these the clause is 1. Parti- 
cipial (the participle being itself antithetic to the main verb, or the clause 
containing words antithetic to those in the main, or both): ὥστ᾽ ἐπὶ τούτοις 
ἐστὶ πάντα τὰ κακὰ εἰργασμένοις THY πόλιν πάντα τἀγαθὰ περὶ αὐτῶν λέγειν 
(XII, 33); cf. IIT, 3; XII, 45, 88, 91; XV, 9; XXV, 23; XXXT, 6; XXXII, 
6, 8; XXXIV, 9; 2. Relative, final, etc.: οὐ yap δὴ χάριν γεὑμῖν ἀποδώσει 
τῇ Ψήφῳ κρύβδην εὖ παθών, ὃς τῶν φίλων τοὺς φανερῶς αὐτὸν εὖ ποιήσαντας 

59 Cf. Photius: ἰδίωμα Λυσίου καὶ τὸ τὰς ἀντιθέσεις προάγειν. Jebb remarks that his 
love of antithesis is the one thing that mars the éthos in Lysias (Ait. Or. I, 167). 


60 The dative of specification is frequent in λόγος---ἔργον and ἴδιος---κοινός 
antitheses; cf. Andoc. III, 1, 27; Lys. XIII, 28 (where προσποιεῖ is substituted); 
XXI, 16; Isoc. IV, 181; V, 74; XII, 142; Aeschin. III, 89, 102; Demosth. XXX, 25; 
[XL, 1]. 

Notice that πολεμοῦσι---ἐπιθυμοῦσι are balanced, but not really antithetic; for 
similar instances, cf. the above from Lysias, and Lys. XII, 7 (ἀποκτιννύναι---λαμβάνειν); 
26 (ἀντέλεγες --- συνελάμβανες); 80 (ἐπιβουλεύετε---ἀφῆτε); XVI, 19 (φιλεῖν---σκοπεῖν) 
XXIV, 17 (ἐξωνοῦνται---ἀναγκάζονται), XXXI, 4 (ἀπειρίαν---κακίαν). Cf. below, 
note 67. 

δι For other 2) (2 codrdinate antitheses, cf. III, 47; VII, 26, 33; XII, 2, 89, 92; 
REV, 30,153, 42: KV, 7: ἘΝῚ: 18; X VEL, 2, 15; XXIV, 185: XX V; 16; ΧΗΣ 0; 
XXX, 26; XXXI, 30; XXXIII, 6. 


44 ANTITHESIS IN ATTIC ORATORS, ANTIPHON ΤΟ ISAEUS 


κακῶς ποιεῖ (XV, 10); cf. XII, 39 bis, 91; XVIII, 25; XXIV, 7 bis, 
22 bis; XXIX, 1; XXXT, 10; 3. Comparative: ἐλάττω yap οὐσίαν κατέλιπε 
τοῖς παισὶν ἢ αὐτὸς παρὰ τῶν ἐπιτροπευσάντων παρέλαβεν (XIX, 52); cf. XII, 
80, 86, 89; XIII, 92; XVII, 9; XVIII, 9; XIX, 37, 61; XXI, 15; XXIII, 
TeV; 32.% 

Mutually antithetic subordinate clauses (mainly participial): ὥσπερ 
πολλῶν ἀγαθῶν αἰτίου ἀλλ᾽ ob μεγάλων κακῶν γεγενημένου (XII, 64); 
τῶν μὲν παρόντων καταφρονῶν τῶν δὲ ἀπόντων ἐπιθυμῶν (XII, 78); cf. XII, 
ἘΦ ΟΠ 153 KV, ΠΧ 19 bis. 

Partly implied antitheses: 1. The corresponding antonym para- 
phrased: ψεύσῃ δὲ μηδέν, ἀλλὰ πάντα τ᾽ αληθῆ λέγε (I, 18; τ᾽ αληθη Aeyo= 
ἀλεθεύω); similarly, VII, 26 (μικράς---τοὺς περὶ τοῦ σώματος); XII, 63 
(ἀκόντων --- ἐξαπατήσας τοὺς πολεμίους); XII, 90 (ὀργιζόμενοι ---ἐπιθυ- 
μηταὶ ὄντες); XVIII, 9 (ὠργίζετο--- χάριν joe); XIX, 60; XXIV, 
16 bis; XXVII, 11; 2. Antithetic thought in two corresponding mem- 
bers, but no explicit antonyms: πράξαντες μὲν ὧν ἐφίενται τύραννοι τῆς 
πόλεως ἔσονται, δυστυχήσαντες δὲ τὸ ἴσον ὑμῖν ἕξουσιν (XII, 35; cf. Ant. IT, 
8. 6; Isoc. V, 68); similarly, XII, 47; XIV, 46; XVIII, 25; XXV, 29.4 

Extended antithetic writing. In order to enliven the discourse or 
press a particular contention, Lysias often follows up one antithesis 
directly with another, as in XVIII, 15: οὐκ οὖν αἰσχρόν, εἰ ἃ μὲν Aakedat- 
μονίοις συνέθεσθε βεβαιώσετε, ἃ δὲ αὑτοῖς ἐψηφίσασθε οὕτω ‘padiws διαλύσετε, 
καὶ τὰς μὲν πρὸς ἐκείνους συνθήκας κυρίας ποιήσετε, τὰς δὲ πρὸς αὑτοὺς ἀκύρους ;” 
similarly, in XXIV, 22; XXV, 30; XXXI, 6; XXXIII, 6, 8; XXXIV, 
5; or he groups several such around a single theme, as in XXIV, 16, 
where the speaker contends that it is the men of affluence and strength 
who are prone to be insolent: οὐ yap τοὺς πενομένους καὶ λίαν ἀπόρως 
διακειμένους ὑβρίζειν εἰκός, ἀλλὰ τοὺς πολλῷ πλείω τῶν ἀναγκαίων κεκτημέ- 


* For the terms, cf. XII, 91, and λάθρᾳ-φανερῶς : Andoc. [IV, 21]; Isoc. VII, 58; 
Other antithetic adverbs in Lysias occur VII, 38; XIII, 2; XIX, 54; XXIV, 7; XXX, 
4. 


6 2) (2 subordinate antitheses occur III, 3; XII, 89; XV, 9; XXI, 15; XXIV, 7; 
3) 5. Sos XV, πο OV 7, 22, 

6¢ Cf. III, 5: καὶ ἔγὼ μὲν εὖ ποιῶν αὐτὸν ἠξίουν εἶναί μοι φίλον, αὗτος δὲ ὑβρίζων καὶ 
παρανομῶν wero ἀναγκάσειν αὐτὸν ποιεῖν ὅτι βούλοιτο. Other examples of two terms vs. 
one are XII, 24 (ἀσεβές---ὅσιον καὶ εὐσεβές); XIX, 2 (παρασκευὴν καὶ προθυμίαν---ἀπειρ- 
lav); XXV, 6; XXIX, 4. Negative antithesis is secured in III, 37; X, 11; XIII, 
96; XXV, 26; XXXIV, 11. 

* For the form and thought, cf. XII, 47; Isoc. IV, 176; XVIII, 24, 68. 


PS — λω ς «πνοὰς, 


ANTITHESIS IN ATTIC ORATORS, ANTIPHON TO ISAEUS 45 


vous’ οὐδὲ τοὺς ἀδυνάτους τοῖς σώμασιν ὄντας, ἀλλὰ τοὺς μάλιστα πιστεύοντας 
ταῖς αὑτῶν ‘pwuats’ οὐδὲ τοὺς ἤδη προσβεβηκότας τῇ ἡλικίᾳ, ἀλλὰ τοὺς 
ἔτι νέους καὶ νέαις ταῖς διανοίαις χρωμένους. cf. also VII, 38; XII, 26, 
39-40, 79-80; XXIV, 7.58 

Artificial and defective antitheses. The impulse to write for show 
(ἐπιδεικτικός) sometimes gained the upper hand with Lysias. A 
Gorgianic touch is seen in the measured symmetry and end-rhyme of 
such couplets as ὥστ᾽ ἐπὶ μὲν τοῖς καλοῖς αἰσχύνεσθαι, ἐπὶ δὲ τοῖς κακοῖς 
φιλοτιμεῖσθαι (XIV, 42); ὥστε ἰδίᾳ μὲν ζῶν φείδομαι, δημοσίᾳ δὲ λῃτουργῶν 
ἥδομαι (ΧΧΙ, 16): or in ΧΧΧΙΤΙ, 6: ὥστε ἄξιον τὸν μὲν πρὸς ἀλλήλους 
πόλεμον καταθέσθαι, τῇ δ᾽ αὐτῇ γὙνώμῃ χρωμένους τῆς σωτηρίας ἀντέχεσθαι 
καὶ περὶ δὲ τῶν παρεληλυθότων αἰσχύνεσθαι, περὶ δὲ τῶν μελλόντων ἔσεσθαι 
δεδιέναι, καὶ πρὸς τοὺς προγόνους ἀμιλλᾶσθαι, οἱ τοὺς μὲν βαρβάρους ἐποίησαν 
τῆς ἀλλοτρίας ἐπιθυμοῦντας τῆς σφετέρας αὐτῶν στερεῖσθαι, τοὺς δὲ τυράννους 
ἐξελάσαντες κοινὴν ἅπασι τὴν ἐλευθερίαν κατέστησαν, Where we have three 
consecutive antitheses with homoeoteleuton and paronomasia in --σσθαι 
in the first two, and, in the third, alternate paronomasia in BapBapovs— 
τυράννους, ἐποίησαν --κατέστησαν ; similarly in XII, 7, περὶ οὐδενὸς ἡγοῦντο 
is altered merely to secure parison and rhyme: ἀποκτιννύναι μὲν γὰρ ἀνθρώ- 
πους περὶ οὐδενὸς ἡγοῦντο, λαμβάνειν δὲ χρήματα περὶ πολλοῦ ἐποιοῦντο; 
Ch ROWE I= DORK 3/2 KITS XOXO 488 

Uncertain or Spurious orations of Lysias. The Eroticus (Plato, 
Phaedrus, 228-234) is either a genuine Lysianic oration or an exceedingly 
clever imitation.®® : The author is prodigal of linguistic adornment, but 
no more so than would be natural for the author of the Olympiacus or 
the Eratosthenes in a speech which was probably designed merely for 
the pleasure of the hearers. The whole is of an antithetical character, 
being a setting forth of the relative advantages of the non-lover over the 
lover. The comparison between of μὲν ἐρῶντες and of δὲ μή ἐρῶντες OC- 
curs seven times in the short speech. 


δ Ci. Andoc. ΠῚ 12; 30. 

§7 Cf. Lys. XIII, 15; XXXIV, 5; also Aeschin. III, 126: εὐπρεπῶς ye ὀνόματι, adda 
τῷ δ᾽ ἔργῳ αἰσχρῶς. 

68 For false antithesis, cf. λόγος-ἔργον in 1, 21 (cf. Ant. III, ὃ 5); οὐδεμίας-ἅπασι 
in VII, 17: προθεσμίας δὲ οὐδεμίας οὔσης τῷ κινδύνῳ τοῖς εἰργασμένοις ἅπασι τὸ 
χωρίον ὁμοίως προσῆκον εἶναι σῶν τὸν σηκόν. The combination of words may have been 
accidental; yet it seems probable that, having used the one word of the pair, the other 
naturally followed by association. 


69 Regarded by Jebb (I, 301), and Blass (I, 423 ff.) as genuine. 


46 ANTITHESIS IN ATTIC ORATORS, ANTIPHON TO ISAEUS 


Bearing in mind the quotations from Lysias above given, cf. Phaedr. 
233 C: οὐδὲ διὰ σμικρὰ ἰσχυρὰν ἔχθραν ἀναιρούμενος, ἀλλὰ διὰ μεγάλα 
βραδέως ὀλίγην ὀργὴν ποιούμενος ; again, 234 A: οὐδὲ οἱ διαπραξάμενοι πρὸς 
τοὺς ἄλλους φιλοτιμήσονται, ἀλλ᾽ οἵτινες αἰσχυνόμενοι πρὸς ἅπαντας σιωπήσον- 
ται (cf. Lys. XIV, 42); and with XXXIII, 6, cf. Phaedr. 232 B: ἐὰν δ᾽ ἐμοὶ 
πείθῃ, πρῶτον μὲν οὐ THY παροῦσαν ἡδονὴν θεραπεύων συνέσομαί σοι, ἀλλὰ 
καὶ τὴν μέλλουσαν ὠφέλειαν ἔσεσθαι, οὐχ ὑπ᾽ ἔρωτος ἡττώμενος, ἀλλὰ ἐμαυτοῦ 
κρατῶν, εἰς.79 

In orations VI, ΓΧ, and XX, the general characteristics of Lysias’s 
antithetical writing are lacking.) The antitheses are more formal. 
There is a careful avoidance of Lysianic excess of adornment—no super- 
fluous words or strained antitheses.7”2 The antitheses of VI are short, 
but not uniform, or in such numbers as in the Epitaphios; they reflect 
Antiphon® quite as much as Lysias or Isocrates. In the repeated ora- 
tions (XI, XV) the antitheses are relatively few, and these for the most 
part repeated, or faint imitations of those in the preceding speech. ® 


70 See also 232 D: ἡγούμενοι ὑπ᾽ ἐκείνων μὲν ὑπερορᾶσθαι, ὑπὸ τῶν συνόντων δὲ ὠφελεῖσθαι, 
ὥστε πολὺ πλείων ἐλπὶς φιλίαν αὐτοῖς ἐκ τοῦ πράγματος ἢ ἔχθραν γενήσεσθαι; for the 
Wyotpevor-clause, cf. Lys. XVIII, 25; XXII, 19; XXV, 22; for the paronomasia in 
πσθαι, cf. Lys. XXXII, 6. 

1 Cf. VI, 13 bis, 17 bis, 31, 32, 36, 43, 44, 55; IX, 14, 16, 21; XX, 1, 7, 10 bis, 13, 
15 bis, 17. . 

72 Cf. IX, 21: λόγῳ μὲν οὖν περὶ τῆς ἀπογραφῆς aywrifoua, ἔργῳ δὲ περὶ πολιτείας 
(similarly VI, 17); for Lysias the ἔργῳ---λόὄγῳ antithesis would have sufficed; the cor- 
responding clauses would have been ornate parallelisms. Cf. Lys. XIII, 15; XXI, 
16; XXXIV, 5. 

τὸ Cf. VI, 18: τὸ μὲν yap ὥσπερ ἀλλότριόν ἐστιν ἁμάρτημα τὸ δ᾽ οἰκεῖον with Ant. V, 
91 and 92; VI, 13 (ἀρνοῦνται---ὁμολογεῖ) with Ant. V, 49. 

74 The following antitheses occur, the parallel sections being indicated by italics: 
X, 11, 28, 29, 31; [XI, 10, 12]; XIV, 10, 13, 19, 23, 30, 33, 42, 46; [XV, 7, 9, 10, 12]. 
For παρεληλυθότων---μέλλουσι (XV, 9), cf. Lys. XXII, 20; XXXII, 6; XXXI, 24; 
for κρὑβδην---φανερῶς (XV, 10), cf. XII, 91. 

The large number of homoeteleuta in XIV, 42 are cited by Blass (I, 422-493) 
as evidence of the spuriousness of the oration. These seem little in excess of XIII, 
45, or XXXIII, 6, or of Eroticus (Plato, Phaedr. 233 E), which Blass accepts as genu- 
ine (see I. P. 425, 426, 430). 

7%’ Lys. XXVI has been declared spurious by Leisi (Die Rede gegen Evandros, von 
Dr. E. Leisi, Druck von Huber & Co., Frauenfield, 1912). The antithetical style 
would seem to support such a conclusion. Considering its length and argumentative 
character, the oration contains fewer antitheses than any other of the generally ac- 
cepted genuine orations (cf. sections 17, 20, 22); these antitheses, like those of VI 
and IX, fail to exhibit the more common characteristics of Lysias’s antithetical writing. 


ANTITHESIS IN ATTIC ORATORS, ANTIPHON TO ISAEUS 47 


Decidedly un-Lysianic is the Epitaphios,” with its ill-arranged topics 
loose periods, and numerous concatenated antitheses. Lysias used 
antithesis sparingly, adapting it to the particular matter in hand. Here 
parisonic antitheses run by the series, attention having been fixed upon 
the technique of balanced writing. Lysias interspersed brisk, rhyming 
antithetic couplets, or enlivened the discourse by an occasional cluster 
of antithetic statements. Here we have monotonous succession. In 
vocabulary and composition the style bears a much closer resemblance 
to that of Isocrates. Mutually antithetic participial clauses are extremely 
common. This form, comparatively rare in Lysias, is very frequent in 
Isocrates, particularly in orations IV and VI.” There are also similar 
antithetic rozou,’* and a like extensive use of abstracts.79 

This general resemblance between the Epitaphios and the writings 
of Isocrates is reflected more specifically in the respective antitheses. 
We must infer either that the author of the Epitaphios borrowed from 
Isocrates, or that the reverse was the case. A comparative study of 
the antitheses will be made in the effort to throw light on one side or 
the other of this vexed question. The passages in the Epitaphios, with 
their antithetic parallels in Isocrates and the other orators, are as follows: 


7 Jebb regards the oration as the work of a late sophist; Blass thinks it spurious, 
and that it was composed prior to the Panegyricus of Isocrates. Wolff thinks it was 
composed subsequently to the Panegyricus, and in imitation of Isocrates. See on the 
subject, Blass I, 442-446; Jebb I, 203 ff.; L. Le Beau: Lysias’s Epitaphios als echt 
erwiesen, Stuttgart, 1863; H. Eckert: De Epitaphio Lysias falso tributo, Berl. 1868; 
E. Wolff: Quae ratio intercedat inter Lysiae epitaphium et Isocratis panegyricum, Berlin, 
1895. 

ΤΊ 1) (1 antitheses of this type occur: Epitaph. 5, 8, 10, 14, 32, 37, 56 bis, 62, 68, 
(cf. 46, 51, 61, 67); Lys. XII, 64; XIII, 15 (cf. XII, 59, 78; XVI, 13; XVIII, 19 bis); 
Isoc. IV, 68, 80, (cf. 27, 34, 71, 81, 90, 128, 132, 151 bis, 152); Isoc. VI, 15, 42, 49, 104, 
(cf. 36, 58, 87 bis). 

78 @npla-avOpwror (Epitaph. 19) occurs Isoc. XII, 121; XV, 214. 

νόμος-λόγος (Ibid.) occurs Isoc. XII, 174; XV, 82. 

ἀρετή-πλῆθος (Epitaph. 23) occurs Isoc. IV, 71; VI, 60. 

φύσις-νόμος (Epitaph. 61) occurs Isoc. I, 10; IV, 105; IX, 54. 

79 See Epitaph. 19, 33, 64, 67, 69, 76; for Isocrates, see below, p. 62. 


48 


ANTITHESIS IN ATTIC ORATORS, ANTIPHON TO ISAEUS 


Epitaphios 


6 


81 


12 


16 


17 


τῆσδε μὲν πόλεως διὰ THY ἀρετὴν 
ἀθάνατον τὴν μνήμην ἐποίησαν, 
τὴν δὲ ἑαυτῶν πατρίδα διὰ τὴν 
ἐνθάδε συμφορὰν ἀνώνυμον κατέσ- 
τησαν. 

ἐπειδὴ θνητῶν σωμάτων ἔτυχον, 
ἀθάνατον μνήμην διὰ τὴν ἀρετὴν 
αὑτῶν κατέλιπον. 


3 ~ 4 > ~ > f 
εκεῖναι μὲν οὖν τῆς ἀλλοτρίας 
ἀδίκως ἐπιθυμήσασαι τὴν ἑαυτῶν 
δικαίως ἀπώλεσαν. 


καὶ ἠξίουν ὑπὲρ τῶν ἀσθενεστε- 
ρων μετὰ τοῦ δικαίου διαμάχεσ- 
θαι μᾶλλον ἢ τοῖς δυναμένοις 
χαριζόμενοι 
J ἢ ᾿ re 

ἀδικουμένους ἐκδοῦναι. 


‘ J > 3 , 
Τοὺς UT εκεινὼν 


ὁ μὲν [Heracles] γὰρ, καίπερ 
ὧν ἀγαθῶν πολλῶν αἴτιος ἅπασιν 
ἀνθρώποις, ἐπίπονον καὶ φιλόνι- 
κον καὶ φιλότιμον αὑτῷ κατασ- 
τήσας τὸν βίον τοὺς μὲν ἄλλους 
ἀδικοῦντας ἐκόλασεν. 

οὐ γὰρ ὥσπερ πολλοί, πανταχό- 
θεν συνειλεγμένοι 


καὶ ἑτέρους 


Isocrates 


I, 50 


IV, 84 


ib, Cay ll 


XIV, 25 


V, 60 


IV, 53 


tg 


IV, 24 


\ ‘ 4 4 9 
τὸν μὲν διὰ τὴν ἀρετὴν 
bd J > ’ » | ‘ 
ἀθάνατον ἐποίησε, τὸν δὲ 
διὰ τὴν κακίαν ταῖς μεγίσ- 
ταις τιμωρίαις ἐκόλασεν. 


καὶ γὰρ ἐκείνων τὰ μὲν 
σώματα ταῖς τῆς φύσεως 
ἀνάγκης ἀπέδοσαν, τῆς δ᾽ 
ἀρετῆς ἀθάνατον τὴν 
μνήμην ἐποίησαν. 

θνητὸς γενόμενος ἀθάνα- 
τον τὴν περὶ αὑτοῦ μνήμην 
κατέλιπε. 

ἀλλὰ πολλοὶ δὲ 
ἀλλοτρίας 


τῆς 
ἀδίκως ἐπιθυ- 
μήσαντες περὶ τῆς αὑτῶν 
δικαίως εἰς τοὺς μεγίστους 
κινδύνους κατέστησαν. 
πεισθέντες yap ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ 
τῆς κατὰ θάλατταν δυνά- 
pews ἐπιθυμῆσαι καὶ τὴν 
κατὰ γῆν ἡγεμονίαν 
ἀπώλεσαν. 

ἐκ τῶν τοιούτων ὅμως 
ἡρούμεθα τοῖς ἀσθενεστέρ- 
ows καὶ τὸ σύμ 
φερον βοηθεῖν μᾶλλον ἢ 
τοῖς U 


παρὰ 
κρείττοσι τοῦ 
λυσιτελοῦντος ἕνεκα συνα- 
δικεῖν. 

τοῦ μὲν [Heracles] ἐπίπο- 
νον καὶ φιλοκίνδυνον τὸν 
βὶον κατέστησε, τῆς δὲ 
περίβλεπτον καὶ περι- 
μάχητον τὴν φύσιν ἐποίη- 
σεν. 

ταύτην γὰρ οἰκοῦμεν οὐχ 
ἑτέρους ἐκβαλόντες οὐδ᾽ 


ANTITHESIS IN ATTIC ORATORS, ANTIPHON TO ISAEUS 


ἐκβαλόντες τὴν ἀλλοτρίαν 
ᾧὦκησαν, ἀλλ᾽ αὐτόχθονες ὄντες 


τὴν αὐτὴν ἐκέκτηντο μητέρα καὶ 


49 


ἐρήμην καταλαβόντες, οὐδ᾽ 
ἐκ πολλῶν ἐθνῶν μιγάδες 
ἀλλ᾽ 


συλλεγέντες οὕτω 


πατρίδα. καλῶς καὶ γνησίως γεγόνα- 
μεν, ὥστ᾽ ἐκ ἧσπερ ἔφυμεν, 
ταύτην ἔχοντες ἅπαντα 
τὸν χρόνον διατελοῦμεν, 
αὐτόχθονες, ὄντες κτλ. 
20 μόνοι γὰρ ὑπὲρ ἁπάσης τῆς IV, 86 τὸν κοινὸν πόλεμον ἴδιον 
Ἑλλάδος πρὸς πολλὰς μυριάδας ποιησάμενοι πρὸς τοὺς 
τῶν βαρβάρων διεκινδύνευσαν. ἁπάσης τῆς ᾿Βλλάδος κατα- 
φρονήσαντας ἀπήντων τὴν 
24 ταῦτα μίᾳ γνώμῃ πάντες ἀπήν- οἰκείαν δύναμιν ἔχοντες 
των ὀλίγοι πρὸς πολλοὺς ἐνόμιζον ὀλίγοι πρὸς πολλὰς μυριά- 
γὰρ τὰς: μὲν ψυχὰς ἀλλοτρίας δας, ὥσπερ ἐν ἀλλοτρίαις 
διὰ τὸν θάνατον κεκτῆσθαι, τὴν ψυχαῖς μέλλοντες κινδυν- 
δ᾽ ἐκ τῶν κινδύνων μνήμην ἰδίαν εὐσειν. 
καταλείψειν. 
Epitaphios Isocrates Other Orators 
23 οὐκ ἐφοβήθησαν τὸ IV, 71 τῶν μὲν mode Lycurg. 108 καὶ κατα- 
πλῆθος τῶν ἐναντίων μίων ἀνυπόσ- φανῆ 
ἀλλὰ τῇ αὑτῶν ἀρετῇ τατον οἱομένων ἐποίησαν 
μᾶλλον ἐπίστευσαν 89 εἶναι διὰ τὸ τὴν ἀνὸ- 
πληθος, τῶν ρείαν τοῦ 
δὲ συμμάχων πλούτου 
ἀνυπέρβλετ- καὶ τὴν 
τον ἡγουμένων ἀρετὴν 
ἔχειν τὴν ἀρε- τοῦ 
τήν. πλήθους 
περιγιγ5 
νομένην. 


80Cf. Andoc. I, 107: νομίσαντες τὴν σφετέραν αὑτῶν ἀρετὴν εἶναι τῷ 


- ἐκείνων ἀντιτάξασθαι. 


πλήθει τῷ 


50 


29 


91 


ANTITHESIS IN ATTIC ORATORS, ANTIPHON TO ISAEUS 


ὁδὸν μὲν διὰ τῆς 
θαλάττης ἐποιήσατο, 
πλοῦν δὲ διὰ τῆς γῆς 
ἠνάγκασε γενέσθαι, 
ζεύξας μὲν τὸν Ἕλ- 
λήσποντον, διορύξας 
τὸν "Adw. 


οὐχ ἡττηθέντες τῶν 
ἐναντίων ἀλλ᾽ ἀποθα- 
ἐτάχ- 


νόντες οὗπερ 


θησαν μάχεσθαι. 


VI, 


IV, 


VI, 100 


60 (οἶδε) ob τῷ 


Hypereides 
πλήθει τῶν Epitaph. 19 
ἄλλων περιγιγ- 
ἀλλὰ 


ταῖς ἀρεταῖς 


νομένους 


ταῖς ὑπ᾽ ἐμοῦ 
προειρημέναις. 


89 (συνηνάγκασεν) Aeschines III, 


ὥστε τῷ OTpa- 132 
τοπέδῳ πλεῦσαι 

μὲν διὰ τῆς 

ἠπείρου, 

πεζεῦσαι δὲ διὰ 

τῆς θαλάττης, 

τὸν μὲν Ἑλλήσ- 

ποντον ζεύξας, 

τὸν δ᾽ "Λθω 


διορύξας. 


οὐδ᾽ ἡττήθησαν, Lycurg. 48 
ἀλλ᾽ ἐνταῦθα 

τὸν βίον 

ἐτελεύτησαν, 

οὗπερ 

ἐτάχθησαν. 


τὴν ἀρε- 
τὴν ἴσχυν͵ 
καὶ τὴν 
ἀνδρείαν 
πληθος, 
ἀλλ᾽ οὐ 
τὸν 
πολὺν 
ἀριθμὸν 
τῶν 
σωμάτων 
εἶναι 
κρίνοντες. 


οὐχ ὁ μὲν 
τῶν 
Περσῶν 
βασιλεύς, 
ὁ τὸν 
"Ada 
διορύξας, 
ὁ τὸν 
Ἑλλήσ- 
ποντον 
ζεύξας. 


οὐχ ἡτ- 
τηθέντες, 
ἀλλ᾽ ἀπο- 
θανόντες 
ἔνθαπερ 
ἐτάχθη- 
σαν ὑπὲρ 
τῆς ἐλευ- 
θερίας 
ἀμύνον- 
τες. 


ANTITHESIS IN ATTIC ORATORS, ANTIPHON TO ISAEUS 51 


<= or 9 ont A 
44 τῇ ἰδίᾳ ἀρετῇ κοινὴν 


62 


53 


62 


33 


τὴν ἐλευθερίαν καὶ 
τοῖς ἄλλοις ἐκτήσαν- 
το. 


ταῖς αὑτῶν ψυχαῖς 
ΠΣ , \ 

κοινὴν τὴν πόλιν Kal 

τοῖς ἄλλοις κτησό- 

μενοι. 

τρόπαιον δὲ στήσαν- 

τες καλλίστου μὲν 

αὐτοῖς, αἰσχίστου δὲ 
͵ 

πολεμίοις. 


Lycurg. 104 τοῖς ἰδίοις 
κινδύνοις 
κοινὴν 
ἄδειαν 
τοῖς Ἕλ- 
λησι 
κτώμενοι. 

Hypereides διὰ τὴν 

Epitaph. 24 ἰδίαν 
ἀρετὴν 
τὴν κοινὴν 
ἐλευθερ- 
ἰαν τοῖς 
Ἕλλησιν 
ἐβεβαίω- 


σαν.δ' 


Aeschin. ITT, 93 καλλίσ- 
TOLS 
ὀνόμασιν 
αἰσχίσ- 
τας 
πράξεις 
γράφων 

Lycurg. 68 ὥστε τὸ 
κάλλισ- 
τον τῶν 
ἔργων 
πρὸς τὸν 
αἴσχισ- 
τον συμ- 
βαλεῖν 
ἠξίωσε. 


θάνατον μετ᾽ ἐλευ- VIII,93 προαιρουμένων 


θερίας αἱρούμενοι ἢ 
, A ͵ 
βίον μετὰ δουλείας. 
ἡγησάμενοι κρεῖττον 
εἶναι μετ᾽ ἀρετῆς καὶ 


μέτριον βίον 
μετὰ δικαιο- 
σύνης μᾶλλον ἢ 
μέγαν πλοῦτον 


8 Cf. pseudo-Demades 4: κτήσασθαι γὰρ θανάτῳ δημοσίαν εὔνοιαν καλόν. 


52 ANTITHESIS IN ATTIC ORATORS, ANTIPHON ΤΟ ISAEUS 


πενίας καὶ φυγῆς μετ᾽ ἀδικίας. 
ἐλευθερίαν ἢ μετ᾽ 
ὀνείδους καὶ πλούτου IV, 95 ἀλλ᾽ αὐτοὶ μὲν 


δουλείαν τῆς πατρί- ὑπὲρ τῆς ἐλευθε- 
δος. ρίας πολεμεῖν 

θά καὶ οὔτε αὐτοὶ πλέον παρεσκευάΐ- 
ἔχειν δεόμενοι τῆς μὲν οντο, τοῖς δ᾽ 
αὑτῶν ἐλευθερίας καὶ ἄλλοις τῆν 
τοῖς βουλομένοις δου- δουλείαν αἱρου- 
λεύειν μετέδοσαν τῆς μένοις συγγν- 
δ᾽ ἐκείνων δουλείας ὠμὴην εἶχον. 


αὐτοὶ μετέχειν οὐκ 

ἠξίωσαν. 

The largest number of parallel passages are found in the Panegyricus , 
while others, none the less closely related, appear in other orations of 
Isocrates.** This is what we should expect to notice in an author who 
borrows from Isocrates. Again, it will be observed that the Epitaphios 
passages, while showing no improvement over Isocrates, display an almost 
equal amount of artistic elaboration, and the antithesis in no case appears 
weakened. Isocrates, we may safely assume, would not have borrowed 
except to sharpen the antithesis or expand it into the form of his charac- 
teristic periods.* 

Furthermore, Isocrates’s preéminence in the art of antithetic writing 
should, I think, exonerate him from the charge of such extensive bor- 
rowing as that above indicated. 

The Epitaphios (Arist. Rhet. III, 10, 1411 a) was doubtless highly 
esteemed in antiquity. Aeschin. III, 132 and Lycurg. 48 reflect the 
corresponding Epitaphios passages quite as clearly as they do those in 
Isocrates, and it is reasonable to suppose they were written in view of 
both.* Lycurg. 104 and Hyperid. Epitaph. 29 may reflect the corre- 
sponding Epitaphios passage. Elsewhere in the Attic Orators we fail 


® Tf the passages indicated were borrowed from Isocrates, the Epitaphios must 
have been written later, at least, than Isoc. XIV, 25; X, 17; or VI, 100. 

* The instances elsewhere of Isocrates borrowing are few, and rather uncertain. 
Compare Andoc. I, 107 with Isoc. IV, 71 and VI, 60; Andoc. II, 9 with Isoc. XVI, 40; 
see especially Isoc. IV, 158 and V, 148 and the Gorgianic passage, in view of which 
these were almost certainly written (quoted below p. 89). Cf. also Lys. ΧΧΧΙ, 6 
and Isoc. IX, 54; Lys. XIV, 30 and Isoc. V, 115. 

84 Arist. Rhet. III, 9, 1410 a (quoted above, p. 9) quotes Isoc. IV, 89 rather than 
Epitaph. 29, each of these being reflected in Aeschin. ITI, 132. 


ANTITHESIS IN ATTIC ORATORS, ANTIPHON ΤΟ ISAEUS 53 


to find traces of antithetic borrowing from the Epitaphios. The case 
is otherwise with Isocrates. In the above mentioned orators the traces 
of such borrowing from him are more definite and more numerous. 
The following passages illustrate: 


Tsocrates 

IV, 92 "Ioas δὲ ras Todpas Lycurg. 108 ταῖς μὲν τύχαις οὐχ 
παρασχόντες οὐχ ὁμοίαις ὁμοίαις ἐχρήσαντο, 
ἐχρήσαντο ταῖς τύχαις. τῇ δ᾽ ἀνδρείᾳ πολὺ 


πάντων διήνεγκαν. 
IV, 92 καὶ ταῖς ψυχαῖς νικῶντες Lycurg. 48 εἰ δὲ δεῖ παραδοξό- 
τοῖς σώμασιν ἀπεῖπον. τατον μὲν εἰπεῖν, 
ἀληθὲς δέ, ἐκεῖνοι 
νικῶντες ἀπέθανον. 
VI, 36 (ὁρῶ) ὅλως δὲ τὸν βίον τὸν Aeschin. III, (πόλιν ἑώρακα) ὑπὸ 


τῶν ἀνθρώπων διὰ μὲν 130 μὲν τῶν θεῶν σῳζο- 

κακίαν ἀπολλύμενον, διὰ μένην, ὑπὸ τῶν 

ἀρετὴν σωζόμενον.55 “ητόρων ἐνίων ἀποὰ- 
λυμένην. 

VI, 83 πάντων δ᾽ ἂν δεινότατον Lycurg. 42 τοσαύτῃ δ᾽ ἡ πόλις 
ποιήσαιμεν εἰ συνειδότες ἐκέχρητο μεταβολῇ, 
᾿Αθηναίοις ἐκλιποῦσι τὴν ὥστε πρότερον μὲν 
αὑτῶν χώραν ὑπὲρ τῆς τῶν ὑπὲρ τῆς τῶν ἄλλων 
ἄλλων ἐλευθερίας, ἡμεῖς μηδ᾽ Ἑλλήνων ἐλευθερίας 
ὑπὲρ τῆς ἡμετέρας αὑτῶν ἀγωνίζεσθαι, ἐν δὲ 
σωτηρίας ἀφέσθαι τῆς πόλ- τοῖς τότε χρόνοις 
εως τολμήσαιμεν. ἀγαπᾶν, ἐὰν ὑπὲρ 

τῆς ἁυτῶν σωτηρίας 
ἀσφαλῶς δύνηται 
Hypereides διακινδυνεῦσαι. 

VI, 109 ἐνθυμηθέντες ὅτι κἀλλιόν Epitaph. 24 οἵτινες θνητοῦ σώμα- 
ἐστιν ἀντὶ θνητοῦ σώματος τος ἀθάνατον δόξαν 
ἀθάνατον δόξαν ἀντικαταλ- ἐκτήσαντο. 
λάξασθαι. Dinarch. 1 110 ὑμεῖς εἰς τὸ τῆς 


πόλεως σῶμα ἀπο- 
βλέψαντες καὶ τὴν 

Ll e ἢ 
πρότερον δόξαν ὑπάρ- 
χουσαν αὐτῇ, ἀντί- 
θετε. 


% Cf. Andoc. I, 139: εἰ τοὺς ὑφ᾽ ἑαυτῶν σωζομένους ὑπ᾽ ἀνθρώπων ἀπολλυμένους ὁρῷεν. 


54 ANTITHESIS IN ATTIC ORATORS, ANTIPHON ΤΟ ISAEUS 


ISOCRATES 


Formal antithesis reached the climax of its development in Isocrates. 
That the orator was a pupil of Gorgias is well known, and it is likely 
that he is indebted to him for some of the chief stylistic traits. Antith- 
eses are, as Cicero says, naturally rhythmical.*’ To his short antitheses 
—constructed with a view to the sound rather than the sense of the 
opposed members—Gorgias is said to have applied the principles of 
verse rhythm (although he was not the inventor of this idea).8* Isocrates 
developed a distinct prose rhythm, at the same time amplifying the period 
and giving it a “long stately flow.’ 

Isocrates developed a looser and more flexible period than Antiphon. 
He cared less for the assonances of individual words, and more for the 
rhythm of whole sentences. Lysias and Isocrates differ not so much 
in their language as in their manner of composing. Both use antithesis 
extensively, but with Lysias it is the handmaid of his style; with Isocrates 
as with Antiphon, it is the warp and woof of his composition.*%° Lysias 
displayed a stiff regularity in his rhyming couplets, but, as Jebb remarks, 
he knew how to brace and relax the framework of his writing.** Isoc- 


86 The lost τέχνη of Isocrates is thought to have contained many principles common 
to the Gorgianic rhetoric. Cf. Barczat, p. 12. 


87 Cicero, Orat. LII, 175. 


88 Jebb, 11, p. 56 ff. For the rhythm of Isocrates’s periods, see Blass, I, pp. 163- 


169. 


89 Compare Gorgias: τὰ μὲν κατὰ τῶν βαρβάρων τρόπαια ὕμνους ἀπαιτεῖ τὰ δὲ κατὰ 
τῶν ἙἭ) λλήνων θρήνους (Epitaphios, Frag.) with Isoc. IV, 158: εὕροι δ᾽ ἄν τις ἐκ μὲν τοῦ 
πολέμου τοῦ πρὸς τοὺς βαρβάρους ὕμνους πεποιημένους, ἐκ δὲ τοῦ πρὸς τοὺς Ἕλληνας θρήνους 
ἡμῖν γεγενημένους, καὶ τοὺς μὲν ἐν ταῖς ἑορταῖς ἀδομένους, τοὺς δ᾽ ἐπὶ ταῖς συμφοραῖς 
ἡμᾶς μεμνημένους, and V, 148: καὶ τὸ τρόπαιον τὸ μὲν κατ᾽ ἐκείνων ὑπὸ τῶν βαρβάρων 
σταθὲν ἀγαπῶσι καὶ θεωροῦσι, τὰ δ᾽ ὑπὸ Λακεδαιμονίων κατὰ τῶν ἄλλων οὐκ ἐπαινοῦσιν 


ἀλλ᾽ ἀηδῶς ὁρῶσιν" ἡγοῦνται γὰρ τὸ μὲν ἀρετῆς εἶναι σημεῖον, τὰ δὲ πλεονεξίας. 


90 “One uniform type of structure may be recognized in all the best discourses of 
Isocrates. There is a leading idea—generally some large proposition about the affairs 
of Athens or Greece—which is worked out on the principle of antithesis. Every 
contrast which it can yield is developed; but through all divisions and subdivisions the 
dominant idea is kept before the mind; and, at the close, the simplicity of the original 
proposition emerges from these intricate, yet never confused, antitheses in the sim- 
plicity of the conclusion.”—Jebb, IT, p. 65; cf. Mueller, Gr. Lit. 115, p. 184. 


% See above, p. 42, and Jebb, II, p. 59. 


“ 


ANTITHESIS IN ATTIC ORATORS, ANTIPHON ΤΟ ISAEUS 55 


rates’s besetting sins were his scrupulous exactness and the unvarying 
monotony of his rounded periods.” 


The necessity which Isocrates felt of speaking ἐπιχαρίτως καὶ μουσικῶς 
καὶ διαπεπονημένως (Ep. VI, 6), caused him to give greater artistic 
finish to his periods. Hence, not only the modified verse rhythm, but 
also parison, paronomasia, and homoeoteleuton are the almost constant 
accompaniments of antithesis. This is done, however, by amplifying 
the thought rather than by unnecessarily multiplying words, as often 
with Lysias. He believed that language could be both serious and 
artistic, choosing to write on large themes, which τούς τε λέγοντας μάλιστ᾽ 
ἐπιδεικνύουσι Kal τοὺς ἀκούοντας πλεῖστ᾽ ὠφελοῦσιν (IV, 4). We may say, 
in conclusion, that he employed antithesis in a twofold manner: first, 
for ornament; second, as an aid in the discrimination and comparison 
of ideas. But the two uses were never entirely distinct in his mind. 
In the later orations the figure is not so extensively employed. It is 
noticeably missing in Or. V.** This seems rather a concession to the 
weakness of old age than a disavowal of his former principles of compo- 
sition.® 

Antitheses, clausal and intra-clausal, of every form and degree 
of intensity noticed in the preceding authors, occur with greater fre- 
quency in Isocrates. A very substantial aid in the process of antitheti- 
cal construction was his large command of synonyms. Lysias was the 
first to employ synonyms extensively and systematically in this way; 
with him the subjects of the clauses were opposite, and the verbs repeated 
or synonymous. In Isocrates there is also a considerable number of 


® Dionysius (De Isoc. 13, 561) censures the orator’s constant use of antitheses, 
parisoses, and paromoioses (they are usually found in conjunction) as puerile, and con- 
tinues: καὶ οὐ τὸ γένος μέμφομαι τῶν σχημάτων (πολλοὶ yap αὐτοῖς ἐχρήσαντο καὶ 
συγγραφεῖς καὶ ῥήτορες, ἀνθίσαι βουλόμενοι τὴν λέξιν) ἀλλὰ τὸν πλεονασμόν. Cf. also 
ς. 2, 539, and De Demosth., c. 20. See also Hermog. περὶ ἰδ. c. 11 (Spengel, II, 402). 


93 Cf. XII, 2, where he speaks of ἀντιθεσέων καὶ παρισώσεων καὶ τῶν ἄλλων ἰδεῶν 
τῶν ἐν ταῖς ῥητορείαις διαλαμπουσῶν καὶ τοὺς ἀκούοντας ἐπισημαίνεσθαι καὶ θορυβεῖν 
ἀναγκαζουσῶν. 


°4 Cf. V, 27: οὐδὲ γὰρ ταῖς περὶ τὴν λέξιν εὐρυθμίαις καὶ ποικιλίαις κεκοσμήκαμεν 
, ᾿ ᾽ ΄ - ᾽ ‘ , -«ς; 
αὐτόν, αἷς αὐτός τε νεώτερος ὧν ἐχρώμην καὶ τοῖς ἄλλοις ὑπέδειξα, δι᾿ ὧν τοὺς λόγους ἡδίους 
ἂν ἅμα καὶ πιστοτέρους ποιοῖεν, Εἴς. 
% Cf. V, 28: ὧν οὐδὲν ἔτι δύναμαι διὰ τὴν ἡλικίαν, also XII, 3: ἡγοῦμαι γὰρ οὐχ 
ἁρμόττειν τοῖς ἔτεσι, etc. 


56 ANTITHESIS IN ATTIC ORATORS, ANTIPHON TO ISAEUS 


antitheses in which the subjects of the clauses remain the same while 
the verbs are opposite.” 

Antitheses with clauses coérdinate: χρὴ δὲ κατηγορεῖν μὲν ἡγεῖσθαι 
τοὺς ἐπὶ βλάβῃ λοιδοροῦντας, νουθετεῖν δὲ τοὺς ἐπ᾿ ὠφελείᾳ τοιαῦτα λέγοντας 
(IV, 130; Cf. VIII, 72);°7 σκέψαι δ᾽ ὅτι σε τυγχάνω παρακαλῶν, ἐξ ὧν 
ποιήσει τὰς στρατείας οὐ μετὰ τῶν βαρβάρων ἐφ᾽ ods οὐ δίκαιόν ἐστιν, ἀλλὰ μετὰ 
τῶν Ἑ) )λλήνων ἐπὶ τούτους, πρὸς ods προσήκει τοὺς ἀφ᾽ Ἡρακλέους γεγονότας 
πολεμεῖν (V, 115);58 λάνθανε μέν, ἢν ἐπὶ τῴ σοι συμβῇ τῶν φαύλων χαίρειν, 
ἐνδείκνυσο δὲ περὶ τὰ μέγιστα σπουδάζων (II, 30, cf. ΠῚ, 52).% 

Antitheses with one clause subordinate. In these the subordinate 
clause is 1. Participial (the participle being itself antithetic to the main 
verb, as in IV, 92; V, 6; XII, 52, or the clause containing words antitheti- 


% Cf. I, 6: Ἱρώμη δὲ μετὰ μὲν φρονήσεως ὠφέλησεν, ἄνευ δὲ ταύτης πλείω τοὺς ἔχοντας 
ἔβλαψε. These antitheses generally have other corresponding parts antithetical also 
(i. e., objects, prepositional phrases, etc.); cf. I, 9; II, 30, 46; IV, 76, 125; V, 148; VI, 36, 
37, 87; VII, 60; VIII, 23, 49, 102; X, 36; XVIII, 24; XX, 4; XXI, 17, Ep. VI, 13. 

Comparatively few antitheses in Lysias and Isocrates do not contain synonyms 
(i. e., have full and distinct verbal expression in the clauses); cf. Lys. XX XI, 24; 
Isoc. I, 19; IV, 83, 132; V, 116, 131; VI, 102; VII, 41; X, 13; XII, 87. 

97 For the παραδιαστολή (κατηγορεῖν-νουθετεῖν), cf. above, p. 33. Notice that 
λοιδοροῦντας-λέγοντας are balanced, but not antithetical, thus forming a partial 
antithesis; cf. I, 7: καὶ τὸν μὲν ὄκνον ψόγον, τὸν δὲ πόνον ἔπαινον ἡγουμένη. That Isocra- 
tes felt that balanced words within an antithesis did not vitiate it appears from such 


passages as III, 7, and XV, 255-256. Cf. also I, 9, 34, 40, 47; III, 46; IV, 160; VI, 109; . 


VII, 24; VIII, 87; IX, 60; X, 44; XII, 86, 124, 142; XIV, 54; XV, 24, 131. 

98 For μετά--ἐπί, cf. Lys. XIV, 30; for a similar double grouping of prepositions in 
clausal antithesis, cf. é—#émt, Isoc. VII, 5; &—rpés, Isoc. IV, 158; κατά---ὗπό, Isoc. 
V, 148. On complementary prepositions in intra-clausal antithesis, see note 22, p. 31. 

Prepositional phrases, the same or similar prepositions governing opposite objects, 
occur in opposed clauses: Ant. I, 21-22, 23; Andoc. [IV, 1, 36]; Lys. VII, 6; XXV, 27; 
XXXI, 24; XXXII, 6; Isoc. I, 50; IT, 30, 39; IV, 89, 130; VI, 83; XVIII, 56; Demosth. 
XXIII, 193. Antithetic prepositions, with objects of similar meaning to each other, 
occur in clausal antithesis as follows: a&vev—yera: Andoc. I, 6; Lys. XIX, 3; Isoc. 
I, 6; Isae. III, 68; &—évev: Ant. V, 7; ἐντ--εἰς: Lycurg. 131; &—éx: [Lys. VI, 
31]; ἔξω---ἔνδον: Isoc. VII, 33; κατά---παρά: Aeschin. I, 185; Hyperid. II, 4; rapa— 
ἕνεκα: Isoc. IV, 53; πόρρω---ἐγγύς: Isoc. V, 5; Ep. V, 14; πρό---μετά: [Demosth. 
X, 30). 

% 3) (3 codrdinate antitheses occur elsewhere in Isocrates: I, 1; V, 131; VI, 97; 
VII, 41; XII, 36; XVIII, 46. 2) (2 codrdinate antitheses, I, 1, 6 bis, 9, 12, 17, 30, 
33, 34, 39, 42; II, 36, 46; III, 1, 50; IV, 48, 76 bis, 89, 95, 125, 150, 158; V, 16, 80, 
139; VI, 37, 92; VII, 5, 51, 69; VIII, 84, 108, 134; IX, 32; X, 36; XII, 183; XIV, 19; 
XV, 36, 82; XIV, 42, 50; XVIII, 68; Ep. VI, 14. 


——— 


ANTITHESIS IN ATTIC ORATORS, ANTIPHON ΤΟ ISAEUS 57 


cal to those in the main), as ἀπολέσαντες yap αὑτῶν τοὺς βελτίστους ἐπὶ τοῖς 
χειρίστοις τῶν πολιτῶν γεγόνασιν (VI, 64); similarly, IV, 92, 99 bis, 105; 
V, 6, 60; VI, 43; VII, 28; VIIT, 4, 117; LX, 67; X, 16, 18; XII, 52; XIV, 25, 
62; XV, 233; XX, 18; 2. Relative, in which the subordinate clause 
follows the main, as πῶς δὲ χρὴ τούτῳ πιστεύειν ὑπὲρ αὑτοῦ λέγοντι, ὃς 
ὑπὲρ ἑτέρων ἐπιορκῶν ἐξελέγχεται; (XVIII, 56), and VII, 14; VIII, 52, 
91; IX, 73; X, 48; XI, 46; XII, 104; XVI, 22, 49 bis, or precedes the 
main clause, ἃ: ὥσθ᾽ ἃ παρὰ τῶν ἄλλων ἕν παρ᾽ ἑκάστων χαλεπόν ἐστι 
λαβεῖν, ταῦθ᾽ ἅπαντα παρ᾽ αὐτῆς ἱράδιον εἶναι πορίσασθαι (IV, 42), also 
B33, WE, 1257/69; ὙΠ 55: X11, 104, 219) 226; 9. Temporal, ‘anal, 
conditional, etc., as γύμναζε σεαυτὸν πόνοις ἑκουσίοις, ὅπως ἂν δύνῃ καὶ 
τοὺς ἀκουσίους ὑπομένειν (I, 21), and καὶ γὰρ τῆς ὑγιείας πλείστην 
ἐπιμέλειαν ἔχομεν, ὅταν τὰς λύπας τάς ἐκ τῆς ἀρρωστίας ἀναμνησθῶμεν (1, 
35); cf. also IT, 38; IV, 19, 116, 186; VI, 91; VIII, 46, 80,92; X,8; XI, 28; 
NV 5210! 215: Ep. Ii, 15; 4. Comparative, as ἀλλ᾽ ἥδιον δουλεύομεν τοῖς 
τοιοὗτοις ἢ τῶν ἄλλων ἄρχομεν (X, 57), πλείους δὲ φεύγουσι viv ἐκ μίας πόλεως 
ἢ πρότερον ἐξ ἁπάσης τῆς Πελοποννήσου (VI, 68); similarly, I, 22, 26, 33, 
30) 66,409 DN, 34: 21. 50; 535.77; VI, 8, 87; 895 VIL, 925%, 5 bis; 59: 
MIE AT 7 bis, 174; XIV, 22. 55: XV, 72, 214, 225; XVI, 47; XX, 12:4Ep; 
Wai G2 Ep ΕΝ 6,012,209 

Mutually antithetic subordinate clauses (mainly participial): (ἔχομεν 
συμμάχους) οὐδ᾽ ἐν ταῖς μὲν ἀσφαλείαις διὰ τὴν δύναμιν ἡμᾶς ὑποδεχομένους, ἐν 
δὲ τοῖς κινδύνοις ἀποστησομένους (VIII, 21) πολλὰ μὲν τῶν χρωμένων ἡττώ- 
μενος, ἅπαντα δὲ τῶν ἐχθρῶν περιγιγνόμενος (IX, 44); similarly, I, 31,42; IIT, 
24, 46; IV, 68, 71, 80, 99, 151 bis, 152; V, 5; VI, 15, 36, 42, 49, 58, 104; 
VII, 14, 22; VIII, 23, 87, 119; IX, 23, 43, 44 bis, 45, 60; X, 18; XII, 8, 
48, 72, 118, 246; XIV, 30; XV, 84, 94, 215; XVII, 10, 15. 

Partly implied antitheses: 1. Where a corresponding antonym is 
paraphrased, as τὰ μὲν yap ταχέως ἀπολείπει, τὰ δὲ πάντα τὸν χρόνον 
παραμένει (1, 19, cf. IV, 46), where πάντα τὸν χρόνον is the equivalent 
of Bpadéws; similarly, ἔτη δέκα-ὀλίγῳ χρόνῳ in IV, 83: οἱ τοσοῦτον μὲν 
τῶν ἐπὶ Τροίαν στρατευσαμένων διήνεγκαν, ὅσον of μὲν περὶ μίαν 
πόλιν ἔτη δέκα διέτριψαν, οἱ δὲ τὴν ἐξ ἁπάσης τῆς ᾿Ασίας δύναμιν ἐν ὀλίγῳ 
χρόνῳ κατεπολέμησαν (Cf. IV, 186; TX, 65); see also II, 25 (συμφερόντως 
-- μετὰ βλάβης); III, 33 (διηλλαγμένου --- τραχέως ἔχοντος); IV, 122 

.100 2) 2 subordinate antitheses occur I, 22, 26, 30, 33, 36; IV, 42, 92; V, 6; VI, 43, 
G8, 695 89: ΜΠ’ 52: EX, 67; 5; 16; XEL, 226; KEV, 22, 25; XV, 214, 225; XVI, 4s; 
Ep. Π, 15; Ep. VII, 9; Ep. ΙΧ, 6; 3) (3 antitheses: IV, 53; X, 5; XV, 72. 

101 Similarly, cf. Isoc. IV, 181, and Hyperid. ’Emra¢. 35-36. 


58 ANTITHESIS IN ATTIC ORATORS, ANTIPHON TO ISAEUS 


(ἐλευθερώσοντες -- ἐκδότους ἐποίησαν); and IV, 124; VI, 12, 87, 102; 
IX, 44; XII, 72, 87, 223; XIV, 20, 62; XV, 15, 84; XVI, 49; XXT, 17; 
Ep. IX, 12; 2. Where opposite thought obtains between parts of 
an antithesis without the use of explicit antonyms at all, as in I, 50, 
where the reward of virtue and punishment of viciousness is thus stated: 
τὸν μὲν διὰ THY ἀρετὴν ἀθάνατον ἐποίησε, τὸν δὲ διὰ τὴν κακίαν Tals μεγίσταις 
τιμωρίαις ἐκόλασεν. Other instances are ITI, 14; IV, 27, 84, 128, 132, 151; 
VIII, 39, 123; X, 12; XVI, 42; XVIII, 24; XX, 4.10 

Consecutive and extended antitheses‘* Two or three consecutive 
antitheses on the same theme are not uncommon with Isocrates: περὶ 
πλείονος ποιοῦ δόξαν καλὴν ἢ πλοῦτον μέγαν τοῖς παισὶ καταλιπεῖν ὁ μὲν 
yap θνητὸς, ἡ δ᾽ ἀθάνατος, καὶ δόξῃ μὲν χρήματα κτητὰ, δόξα δὲ χρημάτων 
οὐκ ὠνητὴ, καὶ τὰ μὲν καὶ φαύλοις παραγίγνεται, τὴν δ᾽ οὐχ οἷόν τ᾽ ἀλλ᾽ ἢ τοὺς 
διενεγκότας κτήσασθαι (II, 32). The regular quadruple division of an 
antithesis noticed in Antiphon seldom occurs in Isocrates. Instead, the 
thought in the last member of a preceding antithesis, or of a word just 
used, expands naturally into a new antithesis, as in I, 9: ob yap ὀλιγωρῶν 
ἀρετῆς οὐδὲ ἱραθυμῶν διετέλεσε τὸν βίον, ἀλλὰ τὸ μὲν σῶμα τοῖς πόνοις 
ἔγύμναζεν, τῇ δὲ ψυχῇ τοὺς κινδύνους ὑπέμενεν, Where the thought expressed 
negatively in the two related participles (οὐ---οὐδέ) is stated positively 
in the σῶμα---ψυχή antithesis; again, ob yap ὠλιγώρουν τῶν κοινῶν, οὐδ᾽ 
ἀπέλαυον μὲν ws ἰδίων, ἠμέλουν δ᾽ ὡς ἀλλοτρίων, ἀλλ᾽ ἐκήδοντο μὲν ὡς οἰκείων, 

1022 Two terms are often balanced against one, as (πόλεμοι) ἐξ ὧν τοὺς μὲν οἰκεοτάτους 
els λύπας Kal φροντίδας καταστήσεις, τοὺς δ᾽ ἐχθρὸυς ἐν ἐλπίσι μεγάλαις ποιήσεις (Ep. II, 
11). ΟἿ. also πιστοὶ καὶ δίκαιοι---κακοί (III, 57), ῥαθυμίαι---λογισμοῦ καὶ φιλοσοφίας 
(V, 29); also VI, 57; VII, 76; VIII, 51, 102, 119; IX, 36, 73; X, 8; XII, 48; XV, 
246; Ep. VI, 13. 

Negative antithesis between terms or members is secured in III, 38; VI, 7, 8, 9, 54, 
93; VIII, 4, 12; XIII, 7. 

108 The sequence and grouping of antitheses may be seen from the following list in 
the more highly antithetic orations: I, 1 bis, 6 bis, 7, 9 bis, 12, 16, 17, 19, 21 ter, 22, 
26, 30 bis, 31, 32, 33 ter, 34 bis, 35, 36, 38, 39, 40, 42, 43 bis, 44, 47 bis, 50; IV, 9, 19, 
21, 27, 34, 42, 46, 48, 50, 53, 68, 71, 74, 76, 77, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 89, 90, 92, 95, 99 ter, 
105, 116, 122, 124, 125, 128, 130, 131, 132, 143, 150, 151 bis, 152, 158, 160, 168, 180, 
181, 181-182, 182, 186; VI, 5, 7, 8, 9, 12, 15, 36, 37, 42, 43, 47, 49, 50, 54, 57, 58, 64, 
68, 69, 87 bis, 89, 91, 92, 93, 97, 102, 104, 109; VIII, 4, 12, 13, 21, 23, 39, 42, 45, 46, 
48, 49, 51, 52, 53, 72 bis, 79, 80, 84, 87, 91, 92, 96, 102, 108, 117, 119 bis, 121, 123, 134 
bis, 136. 

Antiphon V and pseudo-Lys. II compare favorably with these orations in number 
and sequence of antitheses. 

104 Cf. Demosth. XXII, 75. 


ANTITHESIS IN ATTIC ORATORS, ANTIPHON TO ISAEUS 59 


ἀπείχοντο δ᾽ ὥσπερ χρὴ τῶν μηδὲν προσηκόντων (IV, 76); here the thought 
in ὠλιγώρουν is repeated and emphasized by a 2) (2 οὐκ--ἀλλά an- 
tithesis, the terms of which are chiastically arranged (ab : : b! a’). 
Compare VI, 109: ἐνθυμηθέντες ὅτι κάλλιόν ἐστιν ἀντὶ θνητοῦ σώματος 
ἀθάνατον δόξαν ἀντικαταλλάξασθαι, καὶ ψυχῆς, ἥν οὐχ ἕξομεν ὀλίγων ἐτῶν, 
πρίασθαι τοιαύτην εὔκλειαν, 7 πάντα τὸν αἰῶνα τοῖς ἐξ ἡμῶν γενομένοις 
παραμενεῖ, πολυ μᾶλλον ἢ μικροῦ χρόνου γλιχομένους μεγάλαις αἰσχύναις 
ἡμᾶς αὐτοὺς περιβαλεῖν,.05 where the mutually antithetic σῶμα---Ψυχή serve 
respectively as the nucleus for two parallel antitheses, the antithesis 
in each case lying in the attributives rather than in the main terms; 
the second antithesis is twice the length of the first—a feature noticed 
in Antiphon (III, y 3); the orator here juggles with antithetic terms 
much as with ἴδιος----κοινός in IV, 76 (cf. ἄνδρα---δαίμονα, θεῶν ---ἀνθρώπων 
IV, 151); the thought is simply the familiar αἱρετὠτερόν ἐστι καλῶς 
ἀποθανεῖν ἢ ζῆν αἰσχρῶς (IV, 95).1% 

Sometimes the antithetic terms are so arranged as to bind together 
the thought of the expansive period: ai μὲν yap πράξεις αἱ mpoyeyer- 
ημέναι Kowal πᾶσιν ἡμῖν κατελείφθησαν, τὸ δ᾽ ἐν καιρῷ ταύταις καταχρήσασ- 
θαι καὶ τὰ προσήκοντα περὶ ἑκάστης ἐνθυμηθῆναι καὶ τοῖς ὀνόμασιν εὖ δια- 
θέσθαι τῶν εὐφρονούντων ἴδιόν ἐστιν (IV, 9); τοῦ μὲν γὰρ γενέσθαι προέχ- 
οντα τῶν ἄλλων ἢ περὶ τοὺς λόγους ἢ περὶ τὰς πράξεις εἰκότως ἄν τις τύχην 
αἰτιάσαιτο, τοῦ δὲ καλῶς καὶ μετρίως κεχρῆσθαι τῇ φύσει δικαίως ἂν ἅπαντες 
τὸν τρόπον τὸν ἐμὸν ἐπαινέσειαν (XV, 36; cf. XII, 87);1° similarly, see IV, 
Die SOs os LET: 119: ete: 

Artificial and defective antitheses. Considering the large number of 
antitheses in the orations of Isocrates, there are comparatively few 
faulty ones. An artificial symmetry, like that in Gorgias and Lysias, 
is at times apparent, as in VII, 33: ἀλλ᾽ ὁμόιως ἐθάρρουν περὶ τῶν ἔξω 
δεδομένων ὥσπερ περὶ τῶν ἔνδον ἀποκειμένων, Or XX, 12: καὶ τοσούτῳ 
μᾶλλον τοὺς ἐπιδόξους γενήσεσθαι πονηροὺς τῶν πρότερον ἡμαρτηκότων, ὅσῳ 
περ κρεῖττόν ἐστι τῶν μελλόντων κακῶν ἀποτροπὴν εὑρεῖν ἢ τῶν ἤδη γεγενη- 
μένων δίκην λαβεῖν. The effort to obtain a rounded period now and then 
results in an artificial antithesis, as in VI, 98: μηδὲν οὖν ἐνδῶμεν τοιοῦτον 


105 For the thought, cf. Hyperid. ᾿Επιταφ. 24; Dinarch. I, 110; also Thucy. VII, 
{1.95 Gin): 
106 For other extended antitheses, cf. I, 33, 38, 47; IV, 168; V, 116; X, 36; XV, 84. 


107 For the thought, cf. Aeschin. II, 118 (rixn—éyw); also the pseudo-Demades 
Δωδεκατίας, ὃ (τρόπος---τὐχη). 


60 ANTITHESIS IN ATTIC ORATORS, ANTIPHON TO ISAEUS 


Tots εἰθισμένοις ἡμᾶς κακολογεῖν, ἀλλὰ τοὺς λόγους αὐτῶν ἐξελέγξαι πειραθῶμεν, 
ὅμοιοι γενόμενοι τοῖς τῶν προγόνων ἔργοις, or in IX 44,: οὐδὲ πρὸς 
ἕν ἀτάκτως οὐδ᾽ ἀνομάλως διακείμενος ἀλλ᾽ ὁμοίως τὰς ἐν τοῖς ἔργοις ὁμολογίας 
ὥσπερ τὰς ἐν τοῖς λόγοις διαφυλάττων. The ἴδιος----κοινός antithesis in X 
41 seems overworked, where, in speaking of Helen’s suitors, he says 
τῆς μὲν οὖν ἰδίας ἐλπίδος πλὴν ἑνὸς ἀνδρὸς ἅπαντες ἐψεύσθησαν, τῆς δὲ κοινῆς 
δόξης ἧς ἔσχον περὶ ἐκείνης οὐδεὶς αὐτῶν διήμαρτεν. Similarly, cf, I, 47; IV, 
151; VI, 89; XII, 86. 

A disparity of antonym is seen in IV, 34: ὁρῶσα τοὺς μὲν βαρβάρους τὴν 
πλείστην τῆς χώρας κατέχοντας, τοὺς δ᾽ Ἕλληνας εἰς μικρὸν τόπον κατακεκ- 
λειμένους. Cf. μέγιστ᾽ -μικρά (IV, 74), πλεῖστον-ἔλαττον (IV, 99), 
παραπλησίοις -ἐναντιωτάτας (VIII, 72), οἰκειότατα--ἀλλοτρίως (XIT, 48).198 109 

General characteristics of Isocrates’s antithetical writing. Broadly 
speaking, most of Isocrates’s antitheses may be grouped around three 
centers: 1. The superiority of the elder democracy and its ideals; 
2. His Theory of Culture—including his opposition to the sophists 
and to dialectic, and the distinctive features of his own training; 3. Pro- 
treptic utterances. This is only to repeat what was previously stated 
that he chose large themes, and employed antithesis as the most effective 
weapon with which to enforce his ideas. Most common and useful 
instruments were the λόγος---ἔργον, ἴδιος---κοινός, c@ua—puxn, ζῆν--- 
ἀποθνήσκειν and the Temporal and Numerical antitheses." 

His treatment of the λόγος---ἔργον antithesis is not unlike that: 
found in Antiphon, Lysias and other authors. It is employed in both 
a literal and a typical sense, the two uses shading into each other, and 
often not to be distinguished. It is hard, Isocrates says, to praise men 
of excessive virtue, as it is those who have done no good at all, τοῖς μὲν yap 
οὐχ ὕπεισι πράξεις, πρὸς δὲ τοὺς οὐκ εἰσὶν ἁρμόττοντες λόγοι (IV, 82). 
Again, (VI, 15): οὐδὲ πώποτε δὲ λόγους ἀγαπήσας, ἀλλ᾽ ἀεὶ νομίζων τοὺς 

108 Tn place of συμμάχους---ἐχθροῖς (VIII, 46) we should expect σὐμμαχοι---πολέμιοι 
(cf. IV, 71, 152) or φίλοι---ἐχθροί (IX, 32, etc.). 

109 Besides balancing non-antithetic words within his antitheses (see above, note 


97), Isocrates sometimes altered words for the sake of variety or symmetry; cf. 
τελευτῆσαι---ἀποθανεῖν (I, 43), ἡττώμενος---περιγιγνόμενος (IX, 44), ἡγούμενος ---οἰόμενος 
(XVII, 15; cf. IV, 81 and Lys. XVI, 13), also II, 25, 46; VII, 33; XII, 73. 

10 For specific references to the group-subjects, see the List of Antithetic Terms, 
p. 69 ff. 

πὰ Cf. Aeschin. II, 118: ἡ μὲν τύχη καὶ φίλιππος ἦσαν τῶν ἔργων κύριοι, ἔγὼ δὲ τῆς 
εἰς ὑμᾶς εὐνοίας καὶ τῶν λόγων. 


ANTITHESIS IN ATTIC ORATORS, ANTIPHON ΤΟ ISAEUS 61 


περὶ τοῦτο διατρίβοντας ἀργοτέρους εἶναι πρὸς τὰς πράξεις. Likewise 
V, 151; VIII, 72; XII, 86. Its later typical use is to contrast the 
real with the ostensible motive of an action, profession-practice, etc; 
this use (like the similar use of ἰδίᾳ---κοινῇ) is seen in those instances 
where the terms in the dative characterize the opposition specified in 
the clauses in which they stand, as λόγῳ παραδοὺς τὴν χώραν ἡμῖν ταύτην 
αὐτὸς ἔργῳ κρατήσεις αὐτῆς (V,6). The common usage of these terms 
often results in strained or artificial antitheses. 

The ἴδιος----κοινός antithesis is effectively used to contrast the elder 
democracy and its ideals with that of his own day. The solicitude with 
which our ancestors discharged public duties was equalled only by that 
with which they cared for their own domestic affairs; they were more 
ashamed of errors in public matters than people now are in matters of 
private import (IV, 76, 77); cf. IV, 81, 181. “We disdain our own 
private allies and levy taxes in order to pay those who are the enemies 
in general of all men” (VIII, 46), thus supporting his principle of employ- 
ing a citizen soldiery as of old. He also inveighs against those who 
attend to public matters with avidity, but neglect their own affairs 
(VIII, 84, 127; XV, 24, 94); or who engage in public affairs with a view 
to their own selfish aggrandizement ἐκ δὲ τῶν κοινῶν ταῖς ἰδίαις ἀπορίαις 
βοηθεῖν ζητούντων (XII, 140). His own idea is presented in XX, 18: 
ἔστι τῶν δικαστῶν νοῦν ἐχόντων περὶ τῶν ἀλλοτρίων τὰ δίκαια Ψψηφιζομένους 
ἅμα καὶ τὰ σφέτερ᾽ αὐτῶν εὖ τίθεσθαι. The correlation of men’s public and 
private conduct thus becomes a criterion for judging the character of 
individuals and cities. Cf. II, 46; IV, 81, 181; VIII, 4, 52, 119. The 
antithesis occurs most frequently in orations IV, VIII and XV. 


Around the σῶμα-- ψυχή antithesis Isocrates centers some of his most 
vital messages and distinctive ideas. His protreptic discourses vibrate 
with one form or another of the idea πειρῶ τῷ σώματι μὲν εἶναι φιλόπονος, 
τῇ δὲ ψυχῃ φιλόσοφος, ἵνα τῷ μὲν ἐπιτελεῖν δύνῃ τὰ δόξαντα, TH δὲ προορᾶν 
ἐπίστῃ τὰ συμφέροντα (I, 40; cf. II, 35). The perfect man (or people) 
is one who exercises the body by toils, and inures the soul to danger 
(I, 9). He disdains those who would rather suffer ill in the body than 
toil with the soul (II, 46); who would nurse their body and soul in luxury 
and ease (IV, 151). He praises those who ταῖς ψυχαῖς νικῶντες τοῖς 
σώμασιν ἀπεῖπον (IV, 92); cf. II, 25; VI, 9. The training of the body and 
soul should be properly correlated.% τὰ σώματα τοῖς συμμέτροις πόνοις, 


12 His formal statement of the relation between the body and soul is given XV, 180. 
Cf. Cic. De Senec. ΧΙ, 36. 


62 ANTITHESIS IN ATTIC ORATORS, ANTIPHON TO ISAEUS 


ἡ δὲ ψυχὴ τοῖς σπουδαίοις λόγοις αὔξεσθαι πέφυκε (I, 12); cf. VIII, 39; IX, 
73. The body should be exercised with self-imposed toils in order that 
it may withstand those which are thrust upon it (I, 21). He feels it his 
main duty to uphold the training of the soul. It is strange, he thinks, 
that people admit that the soul is of greater importance than the body, 
yet show by the institution of public gymnastic contests that they place 
greater stress on healthy bodily condition (IV, 1; XV, 210, 250). Bodily 
strength with wisdom benefits the possessor, but without it, harms him 
(I, 6). Strive to leave enduring monuments of the intellect rather than 
of the body (VI, 109; IX, 73, et passim). On the other hand, he disap- 
proves of dialectic and the sophistical training of the time: σοφοὺς νόμιζε 
μὴ τοὺς ἀκριβῶς περὶ μικρῶν Epifovras ἀλλὰ τοὺς εὖ περὶ τῶν μεγάλων 
λέγοντας᾽ μηδὲ τοὺς τοῖς ἄλλοις εὐδαιμονίαν ὑπισχνουμένους, αὐτοὺς δ᾽ ἐν 
πολλαῖς ἀπορίαις ὄντας, ἀλλὰ τοὺς μέτρια περὶ αὑτῶν λέγοντας, ὁμιλεῖν δὲ 
καὶ τοῖς πράγμασι καὶ τοῖς ἀνθρώποις δυναμένους (II, 39); cf. X, 5, 13 bis; 
ΠΟ: XV, 36; 

Lastly, mention should be made of the antitheses between Living 
and Dying (ζην---ἀποθνήσκειν). This antithesis is found in slightly 
different terms in all the orators, and is remarkably uniform. It is 
fully stated in VI, 89: πολύ γὰρ κρεῖττον ἐν ταῖς δόξαις ais ἔχομεν τελευτῆσαι 
μᾶλλον ἢ ζῆν ἐν ταῖς ἀτιμίαις ἃς ληψόμεθα ποιήσαντες, ἃ προστάττουσιν ἡμῖν. 
Cf. VI, 8; X, 53. The shorter form is τεθνάναι καλῶς---ζῆν αἰσχρῶς 
(II, 36; IV, 95, etc.). τὸ καλῶς ἀποθανεῖν is urged as a laudable ambition 
for every man (I, 43; II, 46; cf. above, p. 29, note 18). 


Two features of Isocrates’s style—his use of abstracts, and the use 
of participial attributives—are noticeable in the antitheses. The one is, 
perhaps, the natural outcome of the other. Plural abstracts are not 
uncommon: ai μὲν yap εὐτυχίαι Kal τοῖς φαύλοις τῶν ἀνθρώπων Tas 
κακίας συγκρύπτουσιν, αἱ δὲ δυσπραξίαι ταχέως καταφανεῖς ποιοῦσιν, ὅποιοί 
τινες ἕκαστοι τυγχάνουσιν ὄντες (VI, 102); similarly, cf. I, 26; IV, 125; V, 
29» 116; VII, 35, 60; VILL, 21; 513 EX, 45; XU; 31, 214s ΤΠ 6 
same tendency to the use of abstracts is indicated by the following list 
of antithetic terms: 
ἀρετή :—xaxia, I, 50; VI, 36; VII, 76; VIII, 119; Ep. VII, 9;--πλῆθος, 
IV, 71;—oaya, IV, 84. 
6:avora—tdvora, XV, 72;—dodyos VIII, 136;—rixn, VI, 92; δικαιοσύνη 
-- ἀδικία: I, 36; III, 34. 


SE ee 


ANTITHESIS IN ATTIC ORATORS, ANTIPHON TO ISAEUS 63 


δόξα: --ἀτιμία, VI, 89 ----ἐλπίς, X, 41:---ἐπιστημή, XIII, δὃ;---πλοῦτος, II, 
32. 

εἰρήνη---πόλεμος : VI, 50, 87, 104: VIII, 12. 

ἐλευθερία---δουλεία: ΙΝ,95, 124: XIV, 5. 

ἔπαινος :- κατηγορία VII, 76;:---ψόγος I, 7, 33. 

εὐβουλία ----ἀκαιρία XII, 86:---εὐτυχία I, 34. 

ὀλιγαρχία---δημοκρατία: VII, 60, XX, 4. 

φύσις :---νόμος IV, 105; IX, 54; --- παίδευσις IV, 50.1% 

Now, in order to specify the exact nature of these large concepts, 
Isocrates often resorted to the use of participial attributives. He thus 
describes his favorite form of government: κατεστήσαντο yap δημοκρατίαν ov 
τὴν εἰκῇ πολιτευομένην Kal νομίζουσαν τὴν μὲν ἀκολασίαν ἐλευθερίαν εἶναι 
τὴν δ᾽ ἐξουσίαν ὅτι βούλεταί τις ποιεῖν εὐδαιμονίαν, ἀλλὰ τὴν τοῖς τοιούτοις 
μὲν ἐπιτιμῶσαν ἀριστοκρατίᾳ δὲ χρωμένην (XII, 131). The main idea 
(δημοκρατία) is described by the σχῆμα κατ᾽ ἄρσιν καὶ θέσιν ; four at- 
tributive participles are used, and five abstract nouns. The parti- 
ciples, except one, and the nouns, except one exhibit uniform parono- 
masia, and are all carefully balanced. The ideal city is similarly des- 
cribed in VIII, 89. This extensive use of attributive participles is one of 
the most distinctive characteristics of Isocrates’s style. 

The two Helens. Is the so-called Gorgianic Helen the one referred 
to by Isocrates;" and is it really a work of Gorgias? An affirmative to 
the first question does not necessarily imply the same answer to the 
second. The authenticity of the piece must, it seems to me, be deter- 


113 Cf, also I, 33, 35, 36; II, 39; IV, 27; VII, 84; VIII, 102, 117, 119; XIII, 1; XIV, 
22: 

114 For the large number of antitheses containing participial clauses, and between 
two participial clauses, see above, p.56 and 57. The same feature of style is indicated 
also by the number of antitheses occurring wholly within participial and relative clauses. 
Participles governing antitheses in indirect discourse occur IV, 132; V, 131; VI, 109; 
VITI, 133, 134; X, 5, 44; XII, 86; after ἡγούμενοι: I, 7; X, 53; XI, 28; XVII, 15; 
Ep. VII, 9; antitheses within relative clauses: IV, 83; V, 68; VI, 5, 42, 58, 69; VIII, 
53, 119; XIII, 1; XIV, 20; XV, 246; XVIII, 38; Ep. IT, 11. 

For a similar style, cf. Lowell, 1, Envoz: 

“For he who settles Freedom’s principles 
Writes the death-warrant of all tyranny; 
Who speaks the truth stabs Falsehood to the heart, 
And his mere word makes despots tremble more 
Than ever Brutus with his dagger could.” 


18 Tsoc. X, 14, 15. 


64 ANTITHESIS IN ATTIC ORATORS, ANTIPHON ΤΟ ISAEUS 


mined on grounds of general probability rather than by any exact cor- 
respondence to a known Gorgianic model or style of composition. We 
may assume with considerable certainty, I think, that the qualities in 
Gorgias most admired by Isocrates were the tendency to use antithesis 
systematically as a mode of composition, and the discussion of large 
political themes. 

Now the proémium to Isocrates’s Helen is a clearly written diatribe 
against the methods of the later so-called sophists (X, 1; cf. ἡ περὶ τὰς 
ἔριδας φιλοσοφία, 6). These men, while posing as instructors in public 
speaking and political wisdom, train youths to cavil on petty themes, 
and make displays among their willing dupes instead of entering into 
competition with their peers in the higher arena of open and candid 
discussion of the large questions of the day (9, 10). In following up this 
subject, Isocrates represents a distinct cleavage between the older and 
the later sophists. He would not be surprised, he says (X, 2), had he 
noticed that this tendency to refinement in speech (περιεγίαν ἐν τοῖς Novos) 
was only a recent development (νεωστὶ ἔγγεγενημένην). Do these pre- 
tenders not know that Protagoras and his following, and Gorgias, 
Zeno, and Melissus left unparalleled contributions in this field (3)? 
Yet, although those men clearly demonstrated that it is an easy matter 
to devise a ψευδῆ λόγον on any theme proposed, men still continue along 
the same line (ἔτι περὶ τὸν τρόπον τοῦτον διατρίβουσιν). 

After thus making honorable mention of Gorgias among the older 
sophists, and contrasting them with the later pretenders, how could 
Isocrates, with propriety, take up a composition of his master and 
criticize it? It is much more probable that he is censuring one of the 
later authors against whom he has been speaking, similarly as he did 
Polycrates in the Busiris.“* He would correct present-day errors by 
criticizing present-day compositions. 

That Isocrates had the “‘ Gorgianic” Helen in mind when he composed 
his own seems evident from a comparison of the two speeches." He 


"6 This is virtually the position of Spengel, Ars. Script., p. 73 ff., and of Jebb 
(Att. Or. II, 97); similarly, cf. Wilamowitz (Aristotles und Athens, p. 172), Theo. 
Gomperz (A pologie der Heilkunst, p. 173 ff.). Blass (Att. Bered., p. 75) is in doubt 
regarding the authenticity, but thinks it probably genuine (Op. Cit. II, 243).}» 

Defending the authenticity of the work are Maass (Hermes, XXII) (1887), pp. 566. 
581; G. Thiele (Hermes XXXVI) (1901), pp. 218-271; W. Suess, Ethos, p. 64; H- 
Gomperz (Sophistik und Rhetorik, pp. 3-6). 


117 See Jebb, II, 97. 


ANTITHESIS IN ATTIC ORATORS, ANTIPHON ΤΟ ISAEUS 65 


says that the writer of the other Helen composed an ἀπολογία rather than 
an ἔγκώμιον, which he set out to do (X, 14); also, that he will endeavor 
to write on the same theme without treating the topics mentioned by 
the others (15). These points of difference are amply illustrated in the 
speeches. The points of similarity are hardly less noticeable. These 
are seen 1. In a like heaping together and grouping of balanced terms 
in either speech, particularly in the triple-pair term combination. The 
example par excellence of term cumulation occurs in the opening of the 
first Helen: κόσμος πόλει μὲν εὐανδρία, σώματι δὲ κάλλος, ψυχῇ δὲ σοφία, 
πράγματι δὲ ἀρετή, λόγῳ δὲ ἀλήθεια" τὰ δ᾽ ἐναντία τούτων ἀκοσμία. ἄνδρα δὲ 
καὶ γυναῖκα καὶ λόγον καὶ ἔργον καὶ πόλιν καὶ πρᾶγμα χρὴ τὸ μὲν ἄξιον ἐπαίνου 
ἐπαίνῳ τιμᾶν, τῷ δὲ ἀναξίῳ μῶμον ἐπιτιθέναι: Four successive pairs of terms 
are found in (8): φόβον παῦσαι---λύπην ἀφελεῖν---χάραν ἐνερχάσασθα---- 
ἔλεον ἐπαυξῆσαι, and in (19): τύχης ἀγρεύμασι---γνώμης βουλεύμασι--- 
ἔρωτος ἀνάγκαις---τέχνης παρασκευαῖς. The most frequent combina- 
tion is that of three consecutive word-pairs, as ματαίοις πόνοις---δειναῖς 
νόσοις---δυσιάτοις μανίαις (17); one series is sometimes followed up by 
another, as τύχης βουλήμασι --- θεῶν βουλεύμασι --- ἀνάγκης ψηφίσμασιν 
(6), followed by βίᾳ ἁρπασθεῖσα---λόγοις πεισθεῖσα---ἔρωτι ἁλοῦσα (cf. also 
ype la es 

Now a similar, though less extensive, or closely formed grouping of 
terms, not noticeable elsewhere in Isocrates, is found in his Helen: cf. 
γένει -- κάλλει ---δόξῃ (14); τάχει --- ρώμῃ---τόλμῃ (26), followed by 
ἐπόρθουν---ἤμελλον---ἠπείλουν ; again (49): μεγέθει τῆς ὀργῆς μήκει τοῦ 
χρόνου-- πλήθει τῶν παρασκευῶν, and in 54, σεμνότατον---τιμιώτατον--- 
θειότατον is followed by ἀνδρίας---σοφίας---δικαιοσύνης." ὃ 


2. In a certain identity of expression. These parallel passages are, 
as we should expect, few, but they seem none the less certainly formed 
in view of one another. Aside from the references noticed in Isocrates 
to the writer of the other Helen, the following verbal parallels occur: 


18 Cf. φρίκη περίφοβος----ἔλεος πολύδακρυς -- πόθος φιλοπενθής (9), and εὐγενείας 
παλαίας εὐδοξίαν --- ἀλκῆς οἰκείας εὐεξίαν ---- σοφίας ἐπικτήτου δύναμιν (4). Other triple 


groups occur in 10, 14, 20. 


19 For like features, cf. Isoc. X, 31, 38, 67. The pseudo-Demades Awéexaerias 
contains similar phenomena. 


66 ANTITHESIS IN ATTIC ORATORS, ANTIPHON ΤΟ ISAEUS 


[Γοργίου] ‘Hedeévn Isoc. X 
3. πατρὸς δὲ τοῦ μὲν γενομένου 18. ὁ λεγόμενος per’ Aryews, 
θεοῦ, λεγομένου δὲ θνητοῦ γενόμενος δ᾽ ἐκ Ποσειδῶνος. 
6. πέφυκε γὰρ οὗ τὸ κρεῖσσον 47. κακῶς μὲν γὰρ παθεῖν ὑπὸ τῶν 
ὑπὸ τοῦ ἥσσονος κωλύεσθαι, κρειττόνων οὐδὲν κωλύει καὶ 
ἀλλὰ τὸ ἧσσον ὑπὸ τοῦ κρείσσον- τοὺς μηδὲν ἐξημαρτηκότας. τοι- 
os αὐὑτης δὲ τιμῆς τυχεῖν ὥστε 
ἄρχεσθαι καὶ ἄγεσθαι. . . θνητὸν ὄντα θεῶν γενέσθαι 
θεὸς δ᾽ ἀνθρώπου κρεῖσσον κριτὴν, οὐχ οἷόν τε μὴ οὐ τὸν 
καὶ βίᾳ καὶ σοφίᾳ καὶ τοῖς ἄλλοις. πολὺ τῇ γνώμῃ διαφέροντα. 
18. ἐν οἷς εἷς λόγος πολὺν ὄχλον 59. ἀεὶ δὲ μετὰ τέχνη ς ἀλλ᾽ οὐ 
ἔτερψε καὶ ἔπεισε τέχνῇ μετὰ βίας θηρώμενος φαίνεται 
ypadeis, οὐκ ἀληθείᾳ λεχθείς. τὴν φύσιν τοιαύτην. 


14. τὸν αὐτὸν δὲ λόγον ἔχει ἥτε Isoc. VIII, 39: (χρὴ γιγνώσκειν) 
λόγου δύναμις πρὸς τὴν τῆς ὅτι τῶν μὲν περὶ τὸ σῶμα νοσημάτων, 
ψυχῆς τάξιν ἥ τετῶν φαρμά- πολλαὶ θεραπεῖαι καὶ παντοδαπαὶ τοῖς 
κων τάξις πρὸς τὴν σωμάτων ἰατροῖς ἕυρηνται, ταῖς δὲ ψυχαῖς 
φύσιν. ταῖς ἀγνοούσαις καὶ γεμούσαις πονηρ- 

ὧν ἐπιθυμιῶν οὐδὲν ἐστιν ἄλλο Pap- 
μακον πλὴν λόγος ὁ τολμῶν, etc.” 


These points of similarity in form and expression emphasize the points 
of difference which Isocrates set out to illustrate (X, 15), and increase 
the probability that it is not a composition of his esteemed master 
which he has presumed to improve. — 


ISAEUS 


Isaeus is considered as marking the transition between ancient 
oratory, as shown in Lysias, and the modern type found in Demosthenes. 
He may be said to combine Antiphon’s shrewdness of argument, the 
plainness of Lysias’s diction, and Isocrates’s ingenious arrangement. 
In one important respect he differs from his three great predecessors: 
his sparing use of antithesis. The fact that he was concerned with 
private cases, making utterance on no great public themes, may partly 
account for this. But the more sparing use noticed in Isocrates’s later 
orations may have been in part a sign of the times."! Isaeus did not 


120 Cf, [Demosth.] XXVI, 26. 


121 Cf. Dionysius, De Isoc. c. 14: οἱ μέντοι ἐπὶ τελευτῇ τοῦ βίου γραφέντες λόγοι ἧττον 
εἰσί μειρακιώδεις, ὡς ἂν οἶμαι τελείαν ἀπειληφότες τὴν φρόνησιν παρὰ τοῦ χρόνου. 





ANTITHESIS IN ATTIC ORATORS, ANTIPHON TO ISAEUS 67 


indeed, relinquish the use of the figure entirely. It was a useful instru- 
ment for sharpening contrasts, for drawing subtle distinctions between 
technical legal terms, and for rendering the sting of his irony more 
poignant. 

The antitheses are, as we should expect, of simple design, and are 
adapted to the demands of the argument. The most common ones 
are πῶς οὐδεὶς (I, 42; III, 59, 63; V, 38; VII, 15; VIII, 39; X, 3) 
and ζην--ἀποθνήσκειν, etc. (I, 1, 46; II, 10, 15, 37; V, 4). Con- 
secutive antithetic writing does not occur to an appreciable extent. 
Hence, we fail to find the formal period of Antiphon and Isocrates or 
the enlivening clusters noticed in Lysias. As a conscious element of 
style, they are superseded in Isaeus by the subtler Figures of Thought. 

Antitheses with clauses codrdinate: (διαθῆκαι) ἃς ἐκεῖνος διέθετο μὲν οὐχ 
ἡμῖν ἔγκαλῶν ἀλλ᾽ ὀργισθεὶς τῶν ὀικείων τινὶ τῶν ἡμετέρων, ἔλυσε δὲ πρὸ 
τοῦ θανάτου, etc., (I, 3; cf. I, 43); ταῦτα τῶν νόμων κελευόντων ὁ 
μὲν ἀνὴρ ὧν οὐδὲ τοῦ μέρους εἴληχεν, οἱ δ᾽ ὑπὲρ ταύτης τῆς γυναικὸς 
ἁπάντων (VII, 23). 

Antitheses with one clause subordinate: καίτοι πῶς ἄξιον θαυμάζειν, ὦ 
ἄνδρες, εἰ ἐμὲ ἐξῃηπάτησεν ἕνα ὄντα, ὃς ὑμᾶς ἅπαντας ἅμα συνειλεγμένους ἐν 
τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ τοιαῦτα ἐποίησε (V, 38); ᾿Εβουλόμην μὲν, ὦ ἄνδρες, ὥσπερ 
Ξεναίνετος οὑτοσὶ δύναται Wevdn λέγειν θαρραλέως, οὕτω κἀγὼ τἀληθῆ πρὸς 
ὑμᾶς περὶ ὧν ἀμφισβητοῦμεν εἰπεῖν δυνηθῆναι (X, 1).133 

Antitheses between two mutually subordinate clauses: ἵνα μηδὲν ἀγνοήσ- 
αντες τῶν γεγεγενημένων ἀλλὰ σαφῶς εἰδότες περὶ αὐτῶν, οὕτως EVEYKNTE 
τὴν ψῆφον (VIII, 4; cf. VII, 34); φιλίας αὐτοῖς πολλῆς ὑπαρχούσης, ἔχθρας 
δ᾽ οὐδεμίας πώποτε γενομένης (Υ11, 43). (ΕΙ, 15; II, 45; VII, 15, 34, 43; 
ΧΟ 16: 

Partly implied antitheses. The antonym of ὀργισθείς is not ex- 
pressed by a single word in I, 43: πρὸς δὲ τούτοις ἐνθυμήθητε ὅτι αὐτὰς 
ἔλυσε μὲν λεώνυμος εὖ φρονῶν, διέθετο δὲ ὀργισθεὶς Kal οὐκ ὀρθῶς βουλευόμενος ; 
cf. διάφορος ὧν --- χρώμενος (I, 20); περὶ πλείονος ποιεῖσθαι----κακῶς 
ποιεῖν (I, 33).13 

122 1) (1 codrdinate antitheses occur I, 1, 3, 15, 42 bis, 46; II, 10, 26, 37, 59; ITI, 
59, 61; IV, 22; V, 4, 17; VI, 15, 59; VIL, 8, 30, 37; VIII, 1, 39; X, 3; 2) (2: V, 21, 44; 
VI, 23. 

128 1) (1 subordinate antitheses occur I, 6; V, 38; X, 1, 6; 2) (2: Il, 15. 

For ὥσπερ---οὕτω, cf. Lys. XII, 86; Lycurg. 111; Aeschin. IIT, 195. 

124 Two terms are opposed to one in I, 33; II, 15 (πείθειν---ὑβρίζειν καὶ ἐξερμοῦν), 
TI, 45 (λόγῳ οὐδὲ διαθήκῃ---ἔργῳ). 

Antithesis is secured by means οἱ a negative in V, 25; VI, 6; X, 2, 22. 


68 ANTITHESIS IN ATTIC ORATORS, ANTIPHON TO ISAEUS 


Defective and false antitheses. Instances of this character arise not 
so much from the effort to obtain symmetry as from a desire to present 
strong argument by means of contrast. μικρόν---μεγάλῃ displays a 
false antithesis in VI, 59: ἐὰν τοῦτο μὲν μηδ᾽ ἐἔγχειρήσῃ ἐπιδεικνύναι 
ἢ καὶ κατὰ μικρόν τι ἐπιμνησθῇ, ἡμῖν δὲ λοιδορήσηται μεγάλῃ τῇ φωνῇ καὶ 
λέγει ὡς εἰσὶν οἵδε μὲν πλούσιοι, etc., similarly, ἕνα---πολλῶν in X, 6: οὐδὲ 
καθ ἕνα νόμον, ὦ ἄνδρες, ws ἔγὼ ἐκ πολλῶν τεκμηρίων ὑμῖν ἐπιδείξω ; Cf. also 
ἀλλοτρίων---σφετέροις αὐτῶν in VIII, 1.135 

Except for purposes of comparison in particular instances, it would 
add little to the value of our study to trace the use of antithesis in the 
remaining Attic Orators.’* The form of extended contrast, recorded 
by Alexander Numenius and others after him ὅταν μὴ πάντως τοῖς ἀντικει- 
μένοις ὀνόμασιν φράζωμεν, ἀντικείμενα μέντοι ἢ διαφέροντα πράγματα--- 
is particularly common in Demosthenes (from whom it was illustrated), 
and in Aeschines, although these orators also employed the conventional 
modes of antithetic writing unstintingly.“’ Formal antithesis, which 
was the ascendant feature of style in Antiphon, Lysias, and Isocrates, 
was far from being discarded in the succeeding and later orators: it merely 
assumed its rightful secondary position. 


125 For defective contrasts (not strictly speaking antitheses), see Wyss on Isae. 
I, 19, also IX, 19 (τοῦ yap—vyevouera). 

126 Cf. Lycurgus, κατὰ Λεωκ. 10, 48, 60, 65, 71, 74, 91, 146. Hypereides, xara 
φιλιπ. 3,4; κατ᾽ ᾿Αθηνογ. 16, 35; ᾿Επιτάφιος 5, 13, 19, 21, 24, 35, 36, 42. 

Dinarchus, I, 20, 24, 27, 48, 55, 65, 76; II, 22. 

121 Cf. Aeschin. II, 4, and the use of ἀντιτίθημι in III, 168, 253. The conventional 
form of the figure is to be noticed particularly in Aeschines’s extensive use of the 
λόγος---ἔργον (Svowa—€pyov) antithesis; cf. I, 55; II, 118; IIT, 89, 102, 126, 141, 142, 
152, 174, 248, 251. Other instances of antithesis are I, 5, 109, 174, 185; III, 57, 75, 
79, 99, 130, 143, 157, 226, 231, 245. 

For Demosthenes’s use of the figure, see Rhedantz, Neue Philipische Reden, Index, 
s. v. Antithese; Straub, De tropis apud Demosthenem et Ciceronem, p. 142; Baden, 
p. 24-25. Instances of formal antithesis (such as we have been considering) are not 
infrequent in Demosthenes; cf. λόγος (évoua)—épyov: XXI, 78; XXX, 25, etc.; 
ἴδιος---κοινός (δημόσιοο): XVIII, 210; XX, 24; XXI, 45; XXVII, 23; πάσχω-- 
δράω (ποιέω): XXI, 43; XXIII, 193; παρεληλυθός---μέλλοντα : IV, 2; XVIII, 192. 
See also XVIII, 162 (favres—reOvedres); XXV, 7 (ἀσθενής---ἰσχυρός), 15, 16 (φύσις 
—vopuos); [XXVI] 10 (περιεῖναι---ἡττᾶσθαι), 13 (ἴσον---ἄνισον), 26 (σῶμα---ψυχή); 
ΧΧΥΤΙ, 29 (φανερά---ἀφανῆ). 


΄ 


IV. LIST OF ANTITHETIC TERMS 


The foregoing discussion has been mainly a study of the formal 
expression of antithesis, the real contrasts being referred to only inci- 
dentally. These may, perhaps, be indicated most accurately by listing 
the more common antithetic terms. The antitheses between Word- 
Deed, Private-Public, Living-Dying, and the numerical and temporal 
antitheses appear to a greater or lesser extent in all the orators; they are 
employed as general modes of contrast, the usage of which was already 
established in Greek Literature prior to the time of the orators. Again, 
certain contrasts, by reason of their repeated and persistent employ- 
ment by an author, become characteristic of the writer’s style. Thus, in 
Antiphon, ἀποκτείνω-ἀποθνήσκω and ἑκούσιος-ἀκόυσιος are the most com- 
mon; in Andocides (III), εἰρήνη-πόλεμος is naturally quite frequent; 
in Lysias, σὠζω-ἀπόλλυμι and ὀλιγαρχία-δημοκρατίαᾳ. The σῶμα-ψυχή 
antithesis is found almost exclusively in Isocrates, as also Ἕλληνες- 
βάρβαροι. With Isaeus, οὐδείς-ἅπαντες is the most common form of 
contrast. The distinctive feature of these antitheses is doubtless due 
in part to the author’s natural bent, partly to the character of the sub- 
jects with which he is dealing. 


(1) Worp-DEEp ! 2 


1. doyos-épyov: Ant. III, 6 5; V, 3, 47, 75, 84; VI, 47; Andoc. 
ΠΡ 27 tayse ta 21s) XE ον 3 ΙΝ Sy SO Wa 


1The main references are given to the word-combinations in clausal antithesis; 
references for comparison, unless otherwise indicated, are to the same words in intra- 
clausal antithesis. The more common pairs are given first; others are given in groups 
which seem to be fairly distinct. Instances of the commoner antitheses in the poetic 
forerunners of the Attic Orators have been added in the notes (the list is not meant to 
be exhaustive), showing the extent to which they were already current. 

2 Cf. Aesch. Prom. 336; Soph. El. 59, 557, 624; O. C. 782, 873; Eur. Alc. 339; Or. 
287; Phoen. 526; El. 893. Cf. éros—épyov, Hom. Il. I, 395; μῦθος--ἔγχος, Ibid. 
XVIII, 252; see also Odyssey IV, 818. 

For variants, cf. Hom. Il. XX, 250; Od. XIII, 297-299; Hesiod, W. and D., 311; 
Pindar, O. VIII, 19; X, 69; Aesch. Prom. 1080; Soph. Antig. 757; Philoct. 555 f.; 
Eur. I. A. 1115; Med. 473; Phoen. 359; Heracl. 542. 

In prose, cf. λόγος, ἔργου σκιά, Democr. ap. Philon. I, 615; ὄνομα---ἔργον, Heraclit. 
Περὲ dus. 66; see also Herodotus III, 72; IV, 8; VI, 38, and elsewhere. λόγος---ἔργον 
is very common in Thucydides. Similarly, Cicero says, Specie quidem blanda, sed 
reapse multis locis repudianda (Am. XIV, 47); cf. rerum-verborum De Or. III, 125. 


70 ANTITHESIS IN ATTIC ORATORS, ANTIPHON ΤΟ ISAEUS 


IX, 21]; Isoc. I, 33; V, 6, 74; VI, 98; VIII, 134; IX, 44; X, 4; XII, 36, 
142; XIII, 7; XX, 3; Ep. I, 15; cf. Lys. VII, 30; Isoc. III, 61. 

a. Datives: Lys. XXXIV, 5; (II, 5, 19; VI, 17; IX, 21]; Isoc. V, 
74; VIII, 134; XII, 142; XX, 3; Demosth. XXX, 25; cf. Ant. III, v 1, 3; 
1546. II, 38, 44; see also ὀνόματι-ἔργῳ, Andoc. III, 1; Lys. XIII, 15; 
[XX, 1, 17]; Demosth. [XL] 1. 

2. ddyos-rpagtis: Isoc. IV, 82; V, 151; VI, 15; XII, 86; XV, 36. 

3. λέγω (εἴπω)---πράττω (ποιξω, Spaw:) Ant. III, 6 2; IV, v1; V,75; 
Lys. XII, 33; [II, 46]; Isoc. III, 1,46; V, 131; XII, 87; XV, 215; Isae. 
TE. 26; Visonic Ant. DV =. 7. 

4. Variations. Δόγο ς--ἀλήθεια, Ant. V, 3; Isoc. HI, 33;—vopos, 
Ant: V, 14:2(V1,.2);,) Lys. {0L, 10]; soe, ΧΙ 174; EV, 12; rors, 
Isoc. I, 12; VI, 57; for other variants with λόγος, cf. Ant. V, 35; Isoc. IV. 
81; VIII, 72. See also paptupéw—karnyopéw, Lys. VII, 33; cf, 
Isae. XII, 8;—Aéyw, Ant. V, 89; (VI, 28). Cf. ὀφθαλμοί-λόγοι, Lys. 
XXIV, 14; ὄνομα--ἔργον, Andoc. III, 1; Lys. XIII, 15; [ΧΧ, 1, 17]; 
Aeschin. III, 126, 141; for other variants, cf. Ant. III, 6 8; V, 5; Lys. 
XVI, 19. ὄνομα with a variant occurs Andoc. IV, 27; Isae. III, 64; 
V, 34; VI, 15; Aeschin. ITI, 99.? 


(II) PrrvATE—PUBLIC 


1. tdvos—xowds:4 Ant. V, 13; Andoc. III, 27; [IV, 1, 35]; Lys. 
I, 47; XIII, 2; XVI, 11; XOCXT, 6; [II 44]; Isoc. IV, 9, 76, 77, 81, 90. 
VI, 93; VII, 52; VIII, 4, 46, 52, 96, 119; X, 36, 41; XII, 12; XV, 188; 
cf. Andoc. [IV, 11, 42]; Isoc. IV, 86; V, 73; VIII, 13, 93, 127; XII, 140; 
XV, 158; XVI, 3. 

a. Datives: Andoc. III, 27; cf. ἰδίᾳ---δημοσίᾳ, Isoc. XVIII, 24; 

Isae. VII, 30. 

2. ἵἴδιος---δημόσιος: Andoc. [IV, 4]; Lys. XVII, 9; XXI, 16, 19; 
XXV, 25; XXVII, 12; Isoc. IV, 181; XVIII, 24; Isae. VII, 30. 

4. ἴἸᾶδιος---πόλις: Ant. II, ὃ 11; V, 79; Lys. XXX, 8; XCXXI, 10; 
Isoc. XVI, 2; XVIII, 24; cf. Isoc. VIII, 120. 

5. Variations. ἄλλος---αὐτός---(αὑτός): Ant. V, 13; Lys. XII, 24; 


3 Cf. Thucy. II], 38, 4: εἰώθατε θεαταὶ μὲν τῶν λόγων γίγνεσθαι, ἀκροαταὶ δὲ τῶν 
ἔργων, and also Aeschin. ΠῚ, 253: ὡς λῃστὴν πραγμάτων, ἐπ᾽ ὀνομάτων διὰ τῆς πολιτείας 
πλέοντα. 


«Cf. Hom. Ody. III, 82 (see also II, 32; IV, 314); Pindar, O. XIII, 49, N. VI, 
55; Eur. Hec. 904. 


LIST OF ANTITHETIC TERMS 71 


ROVEET ds BOX SORA VS AT 1: 15}}1Ξ6 6 0 1 39111, 38; TV; 95: 
ὙΠ 33; ΜΠ 92 0X, 30; X46; SIE AS, 220; XIV, 19, 24: XV 72, 
84, 225; XVI, 47; XVIII, 56; Cf. Isoc. IV, 99; VI, 83. 

ἀλλότριος -αὐτος (αὑτὸς): Ant. IV, ὃ 8; Lys. XXXIII, 6; ΠῚ, 6, 
56: VE nis: Isoc: TV, 152. ΜΠ 54: CTV 25/54" XV 56s ee, 18: 
AMT 12; 1586: VENT, 1; Χ 2; 22; cf. Tsae. LLL; .66;\—elxeros: Lys. 
[VI, 17]; Isoc. IV, 76; V, 80; VII, 24; VIII, 84; XII, 48; XIV, 51; cf. 
Andae EV, 15]; Lys. 1, -33; XX ΧΗ 8; Isoc? Τ 35; TV, δύ: V, 113: 
IX, 77;—1tétos: Lys. [II, 24]; Isoc. II, 46; XV, 24, 94. 


(III) Livinc-Dyinc 


1. Faw—arofvjoxw. Ant. I, 23; 11,6 1; V, 35; Andoc. I, 53; Lys. 
XII, 99; XIX, 49; (II, 8]; Isoc. VI, 8; X, 48, 53; XI, 8; XIV, 55; XVI, 22; 
ΒΡ sae I 1 46; V5 4: Ct. Ant. ἘΝ δ᾽ 1: Andoc.: ΠΡ 57. sec: 
VAS Swe, 3: Χ 27, 

2. ποτ -- τελεύτα. Isoc: 1, 38; TL, 36; V1, 89; 1536. 11 10, 15: 97. 

3. ἀποκηείν ἀποθνήσκω: Ant. I, 5, 21, 22, 26; II, y 11; IV, y 3 
4: ν 67. 

4. σώὠζω -ἀπόλλυμι: Ant. V, 46, 73: Andoc. [IV, 9]; Lys. XII, 68, 
86, 89; XIV, 23; XIX, 54; XXIV, 7; Isoc. IV, 149; VI, 36. 

a. Infinitive phrases: σώζειν (σῶσαι) δικαίως ---- ἀπολλύναι ἀδίκως : 
Ant. V, 73; Lys. XIX, 54; XXIV, 7; cf. Andoc. I, 57. See also τεθνάναι 
καλῶς---ζῆν αἰσχρῶς : Isoc. II, 36; IV, 77, 95; similarly, Isoc. I, 43; VI, 
89s ΠΧ 3: 


bd 


(IV) Bopy-Sour® 


oapa—yuxn: Lys. X, 29; Isoc. I, 6, 9, 12, 40; II, 46; IV, 1, 92, 151; 
VI, 9, 109; VII, 14; VIII, 39; XV, 210; cf. Lys. XXIV, 3; Isoc. XV, 250. 
Variants. σῶμα-- ἀρετή, Isoc. IV, 84; cf. II, 36. For other variants 
with σῶμα; see Ant. V, 35; Andoc. II, 24; Lys. XXIX, 11; [VI, 31]; 


5 Cf. Soph. Ajax. 479 f.; Eur. I. A. 1252; Troiades 637. See also Simonides (Bergk) 
99, 129; Pindar O. II, 26; and above, p. 29 note 18. 


6 Cf. Pindar, Isth. III, 71: μορφὰν βραχὺς, ψυχὰν δ᾽ ἄκαμπτος; Agathon, Frag. 14: 
γυνή τοι σώματος δι᾽ ἀργίαν, ψυχῆς φρόνησιν ἐντὸς οὐκ ἀργὸν φορεῖ. 

See also φρονήματι---σώματι, Eur. Elec. 371 f; cf. Hel. 160,161. The σῶμα---ψυχή 
antithesis is frequently found in Hippocrates; cf. De Daiaet. III, 71 (Littre, VI, p. 
610): ὁκοῖα πάσχει τὸ σῶμα, τοιαῦτα ὁρῇ ἡ ψυχή. 


72 ANTITHESIS IN ATTIC ORATORS, ANTIPHON TO ISAEUS 


Isoc. VI, 109; ΙΧ, 73; XIV, 15; Aeschin. III, 99, 157; Hyperid. VI, 24; 
Dinarch. I, 110.7 


(V) ΤΕΜΡΟΒΑΙ, ANTITHESES ὃ 


1. Past-Future. ὦ. γεγενημένα---μέλλοντα: Lys. XXV, 23; Isoc. 
IV, 181; VI, 47; IX, 60; XX, 12; Ep. IX, 6. -Cf. Andoc. ITI, 2; Lys. 
XXXIV, 5; Isoc. IV, 141; VI, 59. 

ὃ. παρεληλυθότα---μξέλλοντα: Andoc. [IV, 36]; Lys. XV, 9; XXII, 
20; XX XIII, 6, 7; Isoc. II, 35; Demosth. IV, 2; XVIII, 192. 

2. Present-Future (παρόντα---μέλλοντα): Andoc. [IV, 12]; Lys. XI, 
45; Isoc. I, 44; VIII, 121; ΧῊΉΨΎΓ 7. Cf. Ant. VI, 25. 

3. Present-Past (παρόντα---παρελθόντα, etc.): Lys. [II, 67]; Isoc. 
IV, 160; VIII, 80. 

4. Temporal adverbs. τότε---νῦν : Ant. V, 94 bis; Andoc. III, 12; 
Lys. [XX, 17]; Isoc. VI, 54; VIII, 48; XVIII, 46; Isae. I, 20, 30. πρότερον- 
yop: Lys. VIL, 1; X10, 2; XVII, 19; XXVII,"35 dsoc. VI, Gok 
mporepov—varepov: Ant. V, 71; Isoc. I, 47. παραχρῆμα (etc.)—vorepov: 
ὕστερον: Ant. IV, B 3; Lys. III, 39; Isoc. I, 17. For other adverbs, 
cf. Lys. XVII, 9; Isoc. XIV, 30. 


(VI) NumerIcAL ANTITHESES ἢ 

1. was (&mas ): —eis Lys. XXIV, 22; XXXI, 31; Isoc. 
IV, 42, 68, 83, 180, 181, 186; VI, 68; VIII, 134; IX, 65; Isae. V, 38; X, 3; 
cf. Lys. {II, 54]; Isoc. XII, 72; -- ἕκαστος: Andoc. ΠΝ, 16]; Lys. XIII, 
92; Isoc. IV, 128, VI, 54; VII, 22; VIII, 134; —édtyou: Isoc. I, 1; 

7E. D. Burton (Am. Journ. Theol., Vol. 17, p. 598) observes that in Classical 
writers there is no real antithesis between πνεῦμα---σἀρξ or ψυχή---σάρξ, but “The two 
terms σῶμα and ψυχή frequently stand in antithesis from Herodotus down, and very 
frequently in Plato. Plato is the first writer who suggests the idea that the σῶμα is 
injurious to the ψυχή [in the sense that by its sensations and appetites it breaks in 
upon the tranquility of the soul and interferes with its clear vision of the truth, and 
by causing excessive pain or pleasure tends to corrupt it against its will]. In Aristotle 
the two terms—are rather correlates than antitheses.” 

8 Cf. [Gorgias] Helen 11: εἰ μὲν πάντες περὶ πάντων εἶχον τῶν τε παροιχομένων μνήμην 
τῶν τε παρόντων ἔννοιαν τῶν τε μελλόντων πρόνοιαν, οὐκ ἂν ὁμοίως ὅμοιος dv ὁ λόγος 
ἠπάτα. 

For the terms, see also Soph. Antig. 611; Eur. Ion. 7; I. T. 1264. 

Cf. also Arist. Rhet. B 13, 1390 a: τοῦ μὲν yap βίου τὸ μὲν λοιπὸν ὀλίγον τὸ δὲ 
παρεληλυθὸς πολύ, ἔστι δὲ ἡ μὲν ἐλπὶς τοῦ μέλλοντος ἡ δὲ μνήμη τῶν παροιχομένων. 

9 Cf. Simonides (Bergk) 91, 101; Aesch. Pers. 763, Choeph. 520, Sept. 1050; Soph. 
Antig. 14; Eur. Or. 7, 743, 1244, Hippol. 1403, Heracl. Fur. 1139, 1391, Andr. 1116, 
I. A. 957, 1358, 1390, 1394. 


LIST OF ANTITHETIC TERMS 73 


VI, 87; —ovdeis: Lys. I, 18; ITI, 3; VII, 18; Isoc. IV, 150; VIII, 52; 
My 12" X87; Isae. 0,42: 100,59, G1) VIL, 15; VELL, 39:.:Ξ- πον οί: 
Isoc. IV, 46; V, 131; IX, 44. 

2. woNXAoi —eis: Lys. VII, 26; Isoc. III, 24; Isae. X, 6; 
cf. Isoc. VI, 99; —oAtyou: Andoc. [IV, 41]; Lys. XV, 9; XIX, 21; 
ROO OLE Se. Able Isoc. VE 433 VIL, (2370. 2355. ἘΠΡῸ VIEL, |S: 
cf. fsoc. IV, 86; IX, 45; —ovdeis: Lys. III, 47; VII, 26, 38; XII, 7; 
XXVI, 20; XXIX, 1; Isoc. Ep. II, 15; Isae. VI, 43; cf. πᾶς-- πολλοί: 

3. Variations. ~ovos—éddos: Ant. V, 17; Lys. [II, 76]; Isoc. I, 33; 
--ἅπας (mas): Lys. VII, 33; XXII, 16; Isoc. IX, 65. ἐλάσσων-πλείων: 
Ant. II, y 11; V, 91; cf. Lys. [KX, 13]. 6dos—yépos: Isoc. VII, 28; 
XX, 9. 

(VII) TRANSGRESS-OBSERVE; CONDEMN-ACQUIT 

1. Verbs (cf. σὠζω---ἀπόλλυμι). 

ἀπολύω---καταλαμβάνω (or other variant): Ant. IIT, 6 8, 11, y 11, 6 9. 

ἀποψηφίζω---καταψηφίζω (or other variant): Lys. XII, 90, 91; XIII, 
96; Lycurg. 149. 

ἀφίημι--αἱρέω (or other variant): Ant. II, β 11, ὃ 11; Andoc. III, 
23, 28; Lys. XII, 80; XXV, 26; Isoc. XV, 94. 

ἐμμένω---παραβαίνω: Isoc. VII, 41; cf. διαμένω---καταλύω: Isoc. VIII, 
51: 

κατηγορέω---ἀπολογέω (φεύγω): Lys. [VI, 13]; XII, 2. 

λύω---διατίθημι: Isae. I, 3, 43; cf. διαλύω---βεβαιόω: Lys. XIII, 15. 

τιμωρέω---βοηθέω (or other variant): Ant. I, 2; II, y 11; Ill, 68; 
V, 79; Andoc. I, 31; [IV, 36]; Lys. XIV, 19; XV, 12; XXXTI, 24; [IX, 14]; 
Tsoc. IX, 32. 

φεύγω---διώκω (or other variant): Ant. IV, ὃ 9; V, 80; Andoc. [IV, 
36]; Lys. IIL, 36; X, 11, 31; [II, 4]. 

2. Adjectives. 

aitvos—avairios: Ant. II, 8 11, 6 11. 

καθαρός-- ἔνοχος: Ant. IV, a 1; ---ὑπαίτιος: Ant. III, y 1. 

κύριος---ἄκυρος: Andoc. [IV, 9]; Lys. XVIII, 15; Isoc. XVIII, 68; 
1546. IT, 26. 

3. Nouns. 

κατηγορία--ἀπολογία: Ant. VI, 7; Andoc. I, 6; ---δίκη: Isoc. XVI, 2. 


74 ANTITHESIS IN ATTIC ORATORS, ANTIPHON ΤΟ ISAEUS 


(VIII) ActrvE-PASSsIVE 


aipéw (ἀφαιρέω, etc.) —amoBaddw: Andoc. III, 29; —azoneirw: Lys. 
ΠῚ, 4]; ---δίδωμι (παραδίδωμι, etc.): Lys. XXIV, 7; XXX, 26; Isoc. XII, 


Me 


ἀποκτείνω: ---ἀποθνήσκω: (see above); διαφθείρω: Ant. III, χγ 7. 

ἀποστερέω: ---δίδωμι: Lys. XXIV, 7; ---κομίζω: Isoc. XVII, 10. 

ἡττάομαι ---κατορθόω: Isoc. IV, 124; XII, 183; —xparéw Isoc. X, 
18; XII, 31; ---νικάω: Andoc. III, 26; Lys. XII, 92; [II, 24]; Isae. V, 
21; XI, 21; ---περιγίγνομαι: Isoc. II, 25; IX, 44. 

κατορθόω ---ἁμαρτάνω: Isoc. V, 68; VI, 5; VII, 72; XVII, 15; Isae. 
IV, 22; —arvxéw: Isoc. ITI, 24; IV, 48. 

λαμβάνω-δίδωμι: Lys. XII, 39; XXVIII, 10; Isoc. XV, 225; 
XVI, 49; XVIII, 66; Isae. VII, 12. 

πάσχω-- ποιξω (Spaw)": Ant. III, 87, y 3 bis; IV, ὃ 5, 6, 8; Andoc. 
III, 6; Lys. XII, 89; XV, 10; Isoc. II, 46; VIII, 91; XII, 117; XVIII, 40; 
Isae. I, 6. Cf. Lys. XXI, 22; Isoc.IV,63. See also πάσχω ---πατάσσω: 
Ant. IV, γ 4; ---σώζω: Ant. V, 2; Lys. [ΧΧ, 30]. 


([X) Opposite STaTES oF ΜΙΝΡ 


1. Envy, Censure, Hatred, Grief, Pain, Evil Intent, and their 
opposites. 

ἐλεέω---φθονέω: Lys. XXI, 15; ΠῚ, 67; XX, 15]. 

ἔπαινος (ἐπαινέω) ---ἐπιτιμάω: Isoc. VII, 60; Ep. ΙΧ, 12; ---Ψόγος 
(Weyw): Isoc. I, 7, 33; ΤΠ, 1; XII, 15, 118, 223; cf. Isoc. XII, 240; 
with other variants: Isoc. VII, 76; VIII, 72. 

ἔχθρα (ἐχθρός) ---ἰ(φιλία (φίλος) "5 Andoc. [IV, 5]; Lys. XIV, 19; XV, 
12; [II, 67; IX, 14]; Isoc. I, 26, 33; IX, 32, 44; Isae. I, 33; VII, 8, 43; 
cf. picéwpidew. Lys. XII, 54; Isoc. XII, 141. 

ἥδομαι--λυπέω 5 (or other variant): Ant. III, 8 8; Andoc. [IV, 5]; 
Isoc. I, 47 bis; V, 131; VIII, 87; X, 36; XII, 131; cf. eAais—aAdmn: Isoc. 
VI, 47; Ep. II, 11. 


10 Cf, Hom. Il. I, 137; IX, 367; XVIII, 499 f. 

" Cf, Pindar, N. IV, 32; Aesch. Pers. 813, Agam. 1527, 1565. 

12 Cf. τὸν φιλέοντα---ἐχθρόν: Hesiod, W. and D. 342, and φιλεῖς---στυγεῖς : 
Aesch. Choeph. 906. 

1. Οἱ, Hom. Il. IV, 197: κλέος----πένθος, and ἡδώμεθα---λυπώμεθα : Soph. Ajax 
1085 f. See also Aeschin. III, 207: οὗτος κλάει ‘paov ἢ ἄλλοι γελῶσι. 


LIST OF ANTITHETIC TERMS 75 


ὄνειδος---τιμή (or other variant): Lys. XII, 93; XIV, 33; XXV, 6; 
cf. Lys. XX VII, 16; [II, 33]. 

πιστεύω (πιστός) -- ἀπιστέω (ἄπιστος): Ant. III, y 4; V, 3, 
84; (VI, 28); VI, 29; Isoc. I, 22; ---δείδω: Ant. II, 6 1; Lys. X XIX, 12; 
—oBepos: Isoc. V, 80; VII, 51. 

χαίρω ---ἀγανακτέω: Isoc. VIII, 45, 49; ---σπουδάζω: Isoc. 1, 31; 
II, 30; for the variants, cf. Isoc. I, 42; IV, 168. 

Xapifowart - -ἀπεχθάνομαυ: Isoc. I, 30; Ep. TX, 12; —dAv7tew 
Isoc. XII, 263. 

ὠφελέω --βλάπτω( βλάβη): --Ἰ,γ8. XII, 24; XVI, 18; ΠΧ, 16]; 
Isoc. I, 6; IV, 130; V, 76; VIII, 72; XII, 219, 224, 246:---ζἡμιόω: Lys. 
XXIX, 4; Isae. V, 21; X, 16. 

2. Agreement-Difference, etc. 

ἀκούσιος —éxovovos: Ant. I, 5, 26, 27; II, y 1; III, β 6; IV, ὃ 8; 
Ν, 92 bis; Isoc. 1, 21; cf. Ant. TH, ¥ 6, 7. 

ἄκων---ἑκών: Lys. XIII, 28; XXX, 16; cf. Isae. V, 29. 

ἀμφισβητέω---ὁμολογέω: Lys. I, 29; Isoc. IV, 19; VI, 37; XV, 84, 
215; Isae. I, 42; cf. Isoc. VI, 24. 

διάφορος ---χρώμενος: Isae. I, 20, 30, 33; —épouos Isoc. XVIII, 38. 

ἐναντίος --ὁ αὐτός: Isoc. XVI, 50; --- παραπλήσιος: Isoc. VIII, 
72: 

ἕτερος —6 αὐτός: Andoc. II, 24. For other variants, cf. Andoc. [IV, 
7]; Lys. XVIII, 8. 


(X) OpposITE CONDITIONS—PERSONAL 


1. Good-Bad. 
a. Adjectives! and adverbs. 

ἀγαθός —xaxos: Lys. ΠῚ, 47; XII, 33, 47, 64; XII, 47; XVIII, 
Di SOV O15 ΣΧ G0=.( VI, 36]: Tsoc., 5, 16; {ΠῚ ΟΕ Vio: 
IX, 6; XII, 225; cf. Isoc. IV, 168; VIII, 106; —zovnpés: Lys. [II, 77]; 
Isoc. VIII, 79; XII, 214. 

δίκαιος. --ἄδικος , Ant. II, y 10; V, 73; Andoc. I, 53; Lys. XEX,, 54; 
SOME: (EL Ὁ. 16: VI. 55] ΞΟ 38: X1V, 25: 

κακός -- δίκαιος: Isoc. II, 57; —xpnorés: Ant. III, y 9; Isoc. I, 
22: Π|'.52. 

καλὸς ---αἰσχρός: Andoc. I, 57; Lys. [II, 53]; cf. Isoc. II, 36; IV, 
77, 95; —kaxos: Lys. XIV, 42; Isoc. VII, 14; cf. Isoc. I, 35. 

4 Cf. Hom. Il. II 365; Hesiod, W. and Ὁ. 700ff.; Simonides, Fr. 5; Eur. Hec. 
904; cf. also Eur. Frag. 244, 356, 366. 


76 ANTITHESIS IN ATTIC ORATORS, ANTIPHON ΤΟ ISAEUS 


φαῦλος ---ἀγαθός : Isoc. I, 30; VII, 5; XVI, 23;— σπουδαῖος: Isoc. 

I, 1, 43; with other variants: Isoc. IT, 10, 32. 
b. Nouns. 

& pez 7—xoxla: Lys. X, 28; Isoc. I, 50; VI, 36; Ep. VII, 9; τῷ 
Lys. XIV, 32; Isoc. VIII, 35; and κακία: -ἀπειρία Lys. XXXI, 4 (cf. 
Ant. V, 5); ---πλῆθος: Lys. [II, 33]; Isoc. IV, 71; VI, 60; cf. Andoc. I, 107; 
Lycurg, 108; Hyperid. VI, 19::- τύχη: cf. Isoc. VII, 11; IV, 91. 

δικαιοσύνη--ἀδικία: Isoc. I, 39; cf. Isoc. VIII, 93; —kakia: Isoc. 
ΠῚ, 34. 

2. Young-Old; Strong-Weak; Rich-Poor.® 

κρείττους---ἀσθενέστεροι: Isoc. IV, 53; XIV, 20;—Arrovs: Andoc. 
III, 28; Lys. XII, 79; Isoc. VIII, 134; cf. ἀσθενής---ἰσχυρός : Lys. XXIV, 
18; [II, 56]; Demosth. XXV, 7. 

νεώτερος ---πρεσβύτερος: Ant. IV, y 2; V, 74; Lys. XXIV, 7, 17; ΠΠ, 
Sil; Isoc: Vi. 1s ΧΙ 517: 

πένης. -- πλούσιος: Lys. XXI, 15; XXIV, 17; XXVII, 9; Isae. VI, 
59. Cf. Andoc. I, 141; Lys. XXV, 30; Isoc. VII, 124. 

πλοῦτος -πενία: Lys. [II, 33]; cf. Isoc. I, 38; —azopa: Isae. XI, 
37; for other nouns, cf. Isoc. IT, 39; IV, 132. 


(XI) OpposirE CoNDITIONS-POLITICAL 


1. Freedom-Slavery. (ἐλευθερία, εἰς. ---δουλεία, etc.): Ant. V, 49; 
Lys. {11 ).33;'41, 64]; ἰδοῦ TV, 95,124; VIR, 425) ΧΙ 104-0 XIV oe 
Cf. Ant. V, 48; Lys. [IT, 62]. 

2. Peace-War, etc. 

εἰρήνη---πόλεμος: Andoc. III, 17, 28, 35 bis; Lys. XX VI, 22; Isoc. 
VI, 50, 87, 104; VIII, 12. Cf. Andoc. III, 30 bis; Lys. XXV, 30; Isoc. 
Wy 73. 

εἰρηνικός---πολεμικός : Isoc. II, 24; VIII, 136. 

πολέμιοι --- πολῖται (πόλις): Lys. XII, 39; XVIII, 2; XXV, 
23; Isoc. VII, 69; cf. Isoc. VI, 67---σύμμαχοι: Ant. V, 86; Andoc. [IV, 41]; 
Lys. XIV, 13; [II, 10, 62]; Isoc. IV, 71, 152; VIII, 46. 

3. Safety-Danger, etc. 

ἀσφάλεια---κίνδυνοι : Lys. XVI, 13; Isoc. VIII, 21---πόλεμος : Isoc. 
VELL Si: 

σωτηρία --δουλεία (κίνδυνος, or other variant): Lys, XXXIII, 
6; [VI, 43]; Isoc. XIV, 19. Cf. Lys. XXV, 23, 24; Isoc. VIII, 144. 


Cf. ἀνολβίη---ὄλβα: Hesiod, W. and D. 319; Eur. Frag. 366, 641. 





LIST OF ANTITHETIC TERMS 77 


4. Citizen-Metic, etc. 

πολίτης--μέτοικος: Andoc. I, 144; cf. οἰκεῖν--- μετοικεῖν : Isoc. XVI, 47; 
πολίτης ξένος : Andoc. I, 144; Isoc. VIII, 48. 

5. Democracy-Oligarchy, etc. 

5nmokpaTtia—onyapxia: Andoc. I, 99; Lys. XVII, ὃ, 25 ON 
17, 27; XXVI, 17; Isoc. VI, 60; XX, 4-- μοναρχία: Isoc. I, 36; cf. Isoc. 
X, 36. πολιτεία (πόλις) with a variant: Lys. XII, 59; Isoc. IV, 125. 


(XII) Larce-SMALL; Dirricutt-Easy; OPpEN-SECRET 


1. μέγας---μικρός:  Andoc. [IV, 4]; Lys. RV S251 ec. 1 99; 
IV, 74, 143; VI, 109; X, 5; XXI, 17; Isae. VI, 59; Cf. Lys. [II, 63]; 
Isoc. IV, 189; IX, 45; Isae. VII, 35. 

2. χαλεπός---ράδιος : Lys. XXV, 16; Isoc. IV, 42; Vi) 1395 e135 
XIE; 956. 210: Ep. IT, if. 

3. φανερός (ws) -- Οὀφανής : Ant. ΔΕ 502 οὔ Isoe ΠΣ 58; 
- κρύβδην: Lys. XII, 91; XV, 10; Lycurg. 146; --λάθρᾳ: Andoc ΠΝ, 
21} was (VELL. 21]: 

Verbs denoting secrecy-publicity occur Lys. [XX, ἢ]: ἸΞΟΟ. ἸΡ aan: 
11 30:15 


(XIII) Fortune-MIsFORTUNE, ETc. 


ἀτυχία εὐτυχία: Ant. IT, 69; - εὐβουλία: Ant. IV, 6 6; cf. εὐτυχία 
---εὐβουλία: Isoc. I. 34. 

δυστυχής (éw) —ebruxns (ew): Ant. I, ὃ 9; Lys. [II, 60]; Isoc. I, 
42: VI, 102; with other variants: Lys. XII, 35; Isoc. XVIII, 46. 

τὐχη - (ἀτυχία, γνώμη, διάνοια, ἐπιμέλεια, etc.): Isoc. VI, 92; 
TX, 36, 45; XV; 36, 292; Lycurg; 108; with other variants (intra- 
clausal): Ant. VI, 1; Andoc. I, 140; Lys. XXT, 10; Isoc. TfL, 47; TV, 132; 
XVIII, 10. 


(XIV) TEMPERANCE-INTEMPERANCE; PERSUASION-FORCE 


ἀκολασία καρτερία: Isoc. VIII, 102; -- σωφροσύνη: Isoc. VIII, 
119. 


16 Cf. Theognis I, 14: σοὶ μὲν τοῦτο, θεά, σμικρόν, ἐμοὶ δὲ μέγα. See also Cic. 
N. D. IV, 21, 580: magna di curant, parva negligunt; Hor. carm. 1, 6, 9: conamur 
tenues grandia; 3, 3,72: magna modis tenuare parvis. 

17 Cf. Hesiod, W. and D. 287. 

18 Cf. Soph. Antig. 272 f. 


78 ANTITHESIS IN ATTIC ORATORS, ANTIPHON ΤΟ ISAEUS 


Bia—vopos: Lys. XXIII, 12; (II, 19]. 

ἐξαρκοὐντως---ὁὅπερβαλλόντως: Isoc. XII, 8; similarly, cf. Isoc. I, 27; II, 
aoe tk coos ΜΠ 72. eV, 10. 

πείθω--ἀναγκάζω: Lys. [II, 61]; Isoc. XIV, 22;---ῇἊιάζομαι: Lys. I, 
33; Isoc. V, 16; cf. VIII, 21; ---ὑβρίζω: Isae. II, 15. Cf. ἀγάἀγκη--βούλησις 
Lhucy. VII, 57, 7. 

σωφρονέω--- (ἁμαρτάνω, παροινέω, ὑβρίζω, etc.): Ant. IV, ὃ 2; 
Andoc. I, 145; Isoc. VIII, 58. Cf. ἐπαίρω---σωφρονίζω: Ant. IV, γ 2. 


(XV) TrutH-INTELLIGENCE-OPINION 


ἀλήθεια ---διαβολή: Ant. II, 6 1; V, 86; —Adyos: Isoc. III, 33; 
cf. Ant. V, 3; —wevdos : Ant. V, 18, 35, 84; (VI, 28); Isoc. XIII, 1; XV, 
15; Isae. X, 1; cf. Ant. ITI, y 3; with other variants: Ant. V, 2, 5.?° 

avontos—dpovipos: Isoc. III, 7; IV, 48; XV, 255; cf. Isoc. II, 14; 
see also ἀγνόω---εἴδω: Isae. VII, 34; VIII, 4. 

yvapn—rixn: Ant. V, 92; cf. Andoc. I, 140; Isoc. III, 47; 
—(avaykn, γλώσσα, διαβολή, ὀργή): Ant. II, 61; V, 5, 72, 79.7 

dtavora—avora: Isoc. II, 14; XV, 72; ---οὐσία: Isoc. I, 19, 42; 
with other variants: Isoc. IV, 50; VI, 10, 92. 

ὃ 6 € a —owua: Isoc. VI, 109; Hyperid. VI, 24; Dinarch I, 110; 
—xpnua: Isoc. II, 32; cf. Lys. XTX, 61;—with (ἀλήθεια, ἀτιμία, ἐπιστημή, 
etc.) :cAnt, A118 2: Tsoce LT, 38: Vij ΘΟ: ΝΣ 17: KITES. 

εἴδω (ἐπίσταμαι) ---δοξάζω: Isoc. X, 5; cf. Isoc. XII, 9; XV, 54; 
XVII, 54; Aeschin. IIT, 160.” 


(XVI) Gop-Man-NATURE 


&vOpwmros --θεός 5 Ant. IV, a 2; Andoc. I, 139; Isoc. IV, 151; 
XI, 28; XII, 124; cf. Isoc. V, 116; XVI, 23; —Onpiov: Lys. [II, 19]; 


19 Cf. πρὸς βίαν---ἑκοῦσι: Eur. Hel. 395. Cf. Livy XXI, 31, 6: iure minus, vi plus 
poterat. 

20 Cf. ἀλήθει α---δόκησις: Thucy. II, 35, 2; ---πρόφασις: Aeschin. II, 40. 

31 Similar variants (γλώσσα, ὀργή, τύχη) occur with γνώμη in Aesch. Prom. 888, 
Frag. 389; Soph. O. R. 524; Eur. Frag. 226; cf. Agathon, Frag. 14: γνώμη δὲ κρεισσόν 
ἐστιν ἢ ‘paun χερῶν. 

2 Cf. Agam. 1369: τὸ γὰρ τοπάζειν τοῦ aad’ εἰδέναι δίχα. 

“What’s Knowledge, with her stocks and lands, 
To gay Conjecture’s yellow strands?” 
—Lowell, A Familiar Epistle to a Friend. 

22 Cf. Hom. Ody. VI, 149; XIII, 297; Simonides, Frag. 5; Pindar, O. X, 21; Aesch. 

Pers. 93. See also Verg. Aen. IV, 95. 





LIST OF ANTITHETIC TERMS 79 


Isoc. XII, 121; XV, 214; (cf. θεός---θηρίον : Isoc. XI, 32); —yurn: 
Lys. [II, 4]; Isae. VII, 23; -- (πρᾶγμα, χρῆμα): Isoc. XI, 7; XV, 31, 
142. 

θνητός--ἀθάνατος : Lys. [II, 80, 81]; Isoc. I, 9, 82°11 92:0 VI, 109. 

φύσις --ἐμπειρία: Lys. [II, 51]; Isoc. XV, 188; (cf. ἐμπειρία--- 
ἀδυναμία: Ant. V, 2); —vouos: Lys. [II, 61]: Fsoc; EV, 105: PX, 94; 
Demosth. XXV, 15, 16; cf. Isoc. I, 10; (ἀνάγκη; ἀρετή, γνώμη, etc.): 
Lys. ΧΧΧΙ, 6; [II, 4, 80]; Isoc. IV, 50; VII, 49.4 


(XVII) MiscELLANEOUS 


ἀρχή---τελευτήϊϑ: Andoc. ΠΥ, 4]; Isoc. I, 47; IV, 122; cf. Isoc. XII, 24. 

βάρβαροι-- - Ἕλληνες: soc. IV, 34, 128, 158; V, 16, 80, 115, 148; 
VIE SL. 

δύναμις (δυνάμενος) ---ἀδυναμία (ἀδύνατος) : Ant. V,2;Lys. XXIV, 
13; XXX, 24; ---πονηρία: Lys. XIV, 37; XXV, 22; ---(βουλόμενον, 780s): 
Amt. 15: Ξος.- XV, 122. 

εἰ κ 6s (εἰκότως) ---ἀλόγως : Isoc. IV, 150; - γενόμενα: Ant. V, 25; 
- (ἔργον, ὄντως): 38 cf. Ant. IT, ὃ 8, 10, bis. 

τ Isoc. IV, 21; V, 60; VUI, 102; --ἤπειρος: 
Isoc. IV, 89 (cf. Isoc. IX, 55); cf. ἤπειρος. -νῆσος: Isoc. IV, 132; XI, 14. 

xepdalyvw—(nutow: Isoc. I, 33, 39; cf. xépdos—(nuia: Isoc. ΠῚ, 50. 

μάχομαι--- ψηφίζομαι: Lys. XII, 79; Isoc. XOX 20; che Ant. iv, 92: 

παρών -ἀπών: Lys. XII, 78, 80; Isoc. I, 1. 

παρασκευή-- ἀνάγκη: Ant. V, 22; —drepia: Lys. XIX, 2. 

φεύγω---κατέρχομαι: Lys. XXV, 29; XOX 16; SOV. 11: Βος: 
ΧΥῚ, 42. 

ψῆφος (ψηφίζομαι) ---εὔχεσθαι : Aeschin. I, 133; ὕπλα: Aeschin, 
II, 114; ---πρᾶξις, Dinarch. I, 86; cf. Lycurg. 127; cf. arma—consilium 
Cit. De Off, I, 76. 


24 Cf. φύην---μήδεα, Hom. Il. III, 208. 


% Cf. Herodot. VII, 51: τὸ μὴ ἅμα ἀρχῇ πᾶν τέλος καταφαίνεσθαι. See also 
Euripides, I. A. 990. 


36 From Plato, Phaedr. 267 a, we learn that this was a common antithesis with 
Tisias and Gorgias. 


27 Cf. Hesiod, W. and Ὁ. 101, and πόντῳ---χέρσῳ, Hom. Il. 424-426. 


APPENDIX 


Antithesis in the Bible and in English Literature. 


The Bible and the Greek classics must be taken together as the chief 
external influences in the development of the antithetic feature of style 
in our own literature, as perhaps in that of other modern nations also.! 
The oldest and best known example of antithetic writing is that found 
in the tenth to the fifteenth chapters of the Book of Proverbs.2, “A wise 
man rejoiceth his father, but a foolish son is a grief to his mother” 
(X, 1); “The lip of truth shall be established forever, but a lying tongue 
is but for a moment” (XII, 19); ‘‘The law of the wise is a fountain of 
life, that one may depart from the snare of sin and death” (XIII, 14). 
Elsewhere in the Old Testament the figure is sparingly employed. “They 
are bowed down and fallen, but we are risen and stand upright” (Psalms 
XX, 5); “Behold my servants shall eat, but ye shall be hungry; behold 
my servants shall rejoice, but ye shall be ashamed; behold my servants 
shall sing for joy of heart, but ye shall cry for sorrow of heart” (Isa. 
LXV, 13, 14); “Be not a terror unto me: thou art my hope in the day 
of evil” (Jer. XVII, 17).5 

Stripped of antitheses the New Testament would lose many of its 
most effective teachings. “He that cometh after me is preferred before 
me” (John I, 15). “For there is nothing covered that shall not be 
revealed, and nothing hid that shall not be known. What I tell you 
in darkness, speak ye in the light; and what ye hear in the ear proclaim 
upon the housetop” (Matt. X, 26, 27). 


1 Cf. C. J. Child, John Lyly and Euphuism, p. 113. ‘‘Antithesis is said to be a more 
common feature in French than in English; in German, with some exceptions, it is 
conspicuous by its absence” —Encycl. Brit., s. ν. Antithesis. 

2“ Antithesis is the very life blood of the proverb”—Moulton, ‘‘ Modern Readers 
Bible,” Proverbs, Intr., p. XVI. For the “Antithetic” distich as a species of the 
Mashal or technical poetry among the Hebrews, see J. P. Lange, Commentary on 
Proverbs, p. 31. 

3 For other examples of antithesis in the Old Testament, see Psalms XXVIII, 
3S) OV EL, 35-35; Eccl, x, 6, 7; Ten. KROES, 13: LI, 3: 

“Cf. Matt. XV, 8, 11; XXII, 4; Luke VII, 46; X, 16; XVI, 12; John I, 30; III, 
12,.90; VIL, ἃ. 

For ἀντιμεταβολή, (the use of the same terms in the second member of an antith- 
esis with their order inverted), see Matt. X, 39; Mark. II, 27; John XV, 16; Gal. V, 17. 








APPENDIX 81 


St. Augustine noticed the striking use of antithesis in the Pauline 
epistles.» ‘Therefore as by one trespass the judgment came unto all 
men to condemnation; even so through one act of righteousness the 
free gift came unto all men to justification of life” (Rom. V, 18); ‘Who 
changed the truth of God into a lie and worshipped and served the 
creature rather than the Creator” (Rom. I, 25).6 Norden remarks that 
in view of the universal trend of the Greek mind toward antithetic 
thought it is little wonder that the great apostle employed antithesis 
as one of the most effective weapons for enforcing his new ideas. 

To attempt an exhaustive treatment of Antithesis in English Litera- 
ture, would be out of place here. Only a brief and comprehensive account 
can be given, and the endeavor made, in the light of the previous discus- 
sion of the figure in Greek Literature, to point out certain analogies.’ 
Among English, as among the Greek rhetoricians, the term is employed 
in a broader and a narrower sense. ‘The term (antithesis) is applied 
to a sentence in which the corresponding words, phrases or clauses are 
set over against one another in such a way as to make contrasting ideas 
conspicuous. The term is also used of contrasting sentences, or even of 
contrasting paragraphs.’’® It is antithesis in the narrower sense of 
which we shall speak.° 

5 De Civ. Dei, ΧΙ, 16—cited by Norden, Antike Kunstprosa, p. 507. 

6 An effective extended antithesis occurs II, Cor. VI, 8-10. For other instances 
in the Epistles, see Rom. V, 19; VI, 23; VII, 14; VIII, 1, 2, 6; XI, 15; XII, 9; I, Cor. I, 
19.95.27. IV AOR, 20° XV 22. 429. 40: 54-7 Cor, ΤᾺ 12; VELL, 9-36 1 el 19- 
Gal. VI, 8; Eph. IV, 10; I, Thes. V, 3; Titus I, 16. 

7 My indebtedness to Handbooks of Rhetoric, both old and new, is indicated at 
almost every point; to many other writers, not definitely mentioned below, I am 
indebted for helpful suggestions, and for aid in selecting illustrative quotations. 

8 Scott and Denney, New Composition-Rhetoric, p. 448. 

9. “Antithesis, properly so called, consists in the explicit statement of the contrast 
implied in the meaning of any term or description.” —Bain, Elements of Rhetoric and 
Composition, p. 46. : 

A naive but very accurate and adequate account of antithesis is given by the 
anonymous author of the Lady’s Rhetoric (Containing Rules for Speaking and Writing 
Elegantly—Enrich’d with many delightful remarks, witty Repartees, and pleasant 
Stories, both Ancient and Modern. Done from the French, with some improve- 
ments. London, 1707.) See p. 126 ff, “On the Antithesis.” He says in part, ‘“‘This 
sparkling and delightful Figure consists in an Opposition of Words and Sayings con- 
trary to one another in the same Period. Therefore Quintilian names it a Contention, 
and Cicero a Combat of Words. ’Tis a notable Embellishment to a Discourse, for 
its apparent Opposition renders the Stile more pleasant, more florid and adorn’d. 
Such opposite Words are like the Diamonds fix’d together, the Lustre of the one in- 
creases the Splendor of the other”; then follow illustrations, serious and witty, ancient 
and modern, and warnings against the too frequent use. 


82 ANTITHESIS IN ATTIC ORATORS, ANTIPHON TO ISAEUS 


The earliest instance of the extended use of antithesis in English, 
and the most conspicuous example of its abuse, is found in the prose of 
John Lyly’s Euphues.° Antithesis, parallelism, and repetition are basic 
elements of the Euphuistic rhetoric." 

“The acquirement on the part of a people of its rhetorical forms 
might well be made a subject of inquiry. Clearly with the Euphuists 
arose the constant understanding and use of antithesis and parallelism. 

Before their time, there is no marked indication of a persistent 
tendency to the use of these devices in prose; prose literature consisted 
either of simple narrative, or works of polity, theology, instruction, 
made up substantially of straightforward assertions with occasional 
arguments from example and analogy.’’” 

Euphuism prevailed in England approximately from 1557 to 1590. 
It was formerly thought to have risen spontaneously with the appearance 
of Lyly’s Euphues. Landmann showed the fallacy of such a view and 
pointed out striking resemblances between Lyly’s novel and the “alto 
estilo” of the Spanish Guevara, whose “Marco Aurelio’’ had previously 
been faithfully translated by Sir Thomas North. Lord Berners, North, 
and George Pettie preceded Lyly in adapting the “high style” of Guevara 
to the English-reading public. The repeated demands for new editions 
of these translations argue “the existence in that country (England), 
previous to the introduction of the author, of an atmosphere (or more 
concretely a public) favourable to the distinguishing characteristics of 
the author introduced. And so it now appears that Guevara found favor 
in England because his style, or something very like it, was already 
known there.’ 


‘© Almost every line in the Euphues contains a complete antithesis or a part of 
one: “Such sweete meate, such soure sauce; such fayre words, such faynte promises: 
such hot love, such cold desire, such certaine hope, such sodeine chaunge” (p. 80); 
“And canst thou wretch be false to him that has been faithful to thee? Wilt thou 
violate the league of faith to inherite the land of folly? Shall affection be of more 
force than friendship, hate than love, lust than loyaltie?” (p. 62). Transverse allit- 
eration is a characteristic feature: (Philautus to Euphues, p. 40) “Although hitherto, 
Euphues, I have shrined thee in my heart for a trustie friende, I will shunne thee 
hereafter as a trothlesse foe.” 

Ἢ For an analysis and discussion of the Euphuistic style, see Landmann, Euphues, 
Intr. p. XV, and Child, op. cit., p. 40 ff. 

*C. J. Child, John Lyly and Euphuism, p. 113. 

* J. Ὁ. Wilson, John Lyly, p. 35. 


APPENDIX 83 


French translations of Guevara’s works were extant before the ad- 
vent of the English. The influence of the Renaissance was doubtless 
being felt in England, as well as in the other countries of Europe,™ 
and we may safely conclude (with Wilson, p. 42) that the Spanish inter- 
vention ‘“‘confirmed and hastened a development already at work, of 
which the original impulse was English.” 

The Euphuistic style was employed by Robert Green in his Mena- 
phon, and Euphues’s Censure to Philautus; by Thomas Nash in his 
earlier works, and by Thomas Lodge in Euphues’s Shadow, and to a 
certain extent in his Rosalind. Green employed a purer style in his 
later works, and the decline of Euphuism is usually dated from that time. 
(1590). Simultaneously appeared Sidney’s Arcadia, which employed a 
style fundamentally different, and enjoyed a popularity so great as to 
almost entirely supplant the style of its great predecessor, the Euphues.® 
Shakespeare saw the rise and fall of Euphuism, but does not employ 
it, except in parody.'® 

The use of antithesis as a mode of literary expression did not cease 
when Euphuism was abandoned. It is found throughout the whole 
range of English literature—sometimes only as a “corrective spice,” 
as in Bacon and Burke, sometimes as a basic element of style, as in 
Pope, Johnson, Gibbon, Macaulay, and G. K. Chesterton. That the 
figure may be used to excess has always been recognized; the efficiency 
and charm of a moderate use cannot be questioned.'” 

14 Sir Thomas North was the translator of Plutarch’s Lives; the novel “Sinorix 
and Camma,”’ the first of the tales in Pettie’s Petite Palace, is found in Guevara’s book, 
who took it from Plutarch. See Landmann, Euphues, Intr., pp. XVII and XXI. 
Cf. Child, op. cit., p. 113: ‘‘The classics taught Guevara and were teaching England, 
and doubtless the Bible with its wonderful oriental use of these forms would have 
lent its aid.” 

16 In regard to the Euphuistic writers, and traces of Euphuism in English, I have 
followed Landmann closely. 

16 See ‘Landmann, “Shakespeare and Euphuism,” in Trans. New. Shak. Soc., 
p. 250 ff. 

The style is parodied in the character of Sir Piercie Shafton in Scott’s Monastery, 
and by a character in Charles Kingsly’s Westward Ho. See also Johnson’s Every Man 
out of his Humour. 

17 See Demet. περὶ épu., 28; Diony. Halic., Ad. Am. II, 2. 

Cf. Hill, Science of Rhetoric, p. 240: “The nature of antithesis renders easy the de- 
duction of twolaws: (1) since the balanced form displays the contrast most clearly, 
interpreting power is economized by uniformity in the length and structure of the 
contrasted members; and (2) since the antithetic form becomes monotonous from 
this uniformity, antithesis should not be very frequent.” 


84 ANTITHESIS IN ATTIC ORATORS, ANTIPHON TO ISAEUS 


Instances of pungent antithetic expression in Shakespeare are not 
hard to find. ‘With a proud heart he wore his humble weeds” (Cor- 
iolanus II, 3); ‘Not that I loved Caesar less, but that I loved Rome 
more. Had you rather that Caesar were living, and die all slaves than 
that Caesar were dead, to live all free men?” (Julius Caesar, III, 2); 
“T am the last of noble Edward’s sons, of whom thy father, prince of 
Wales, was first. In war, was never lion raged more fierce; in peace, 
was never gentle lamb more mild” (Richard the Second, ΤΙ, 1, 171).}8 


Bacon’s terse antitheses have contributed largely to the proverbial 
character of many of his sayings. The Essay on Studies (one of the 
earlier ones) is unusually balanced. The ‘Examples of Antithesis” 
(Advancement of Learning, Bk. VI, Chap. III)** contains many admirable 
specimens: “ΑΔ healthy body is the soul’s host, a sick body her gaoler”’; 
“Great persons had need to borrow the opinions of the vulgar to think 
themselves happy.”’ The triple term-combination (e. g., Reading, 
Writing, Speaking) is common: “The lowest virtues are praised by the 
common people, the middle are admired; but of the highest they have no 
sense or perception.” 


Cowley and Young”? display a conceited antithesis. The figure 
was employed more temperately, and with greater point and effect, 
by Sir William Temple. Dryden” employed the figure extensively, 


18 Cf. Merchant of Venice III, 5: ‘“‘Why if two gods should play some heav’nly 
match and on the wager lay two earthly women,” etc.; ‘A light wife doth make a 
heavy husband” (Ibid. V, 1); “‘He hath cooled my friends and heated my enemies” 
(Ibid. III, 1); “‘But, oh what damned minutes tells he o’er, Who dotes, yet doubts; 
suspects, yet strongly loves” (Othello III, 3, 70). 

19 “These ‘Examples of Antithesis,’’’ Bacon says, ‘were collected during my 
youth, and are really seeds, not flowers—so many clues, which may occasionally be 
wound off into larger discourses.” 

20 In ‘Estimate of Human Life” whole passages are found like this: “‘The peasant 
complains; the courtier repines. In want, what distress? in affluence, what satietyPp— 
The great are under as much difficulty to expend with pleasure as the mean to labour 
with success. The ignorant through ill-grounded hope are disappointed; the knowing 
through knowledge despond. Ignorance occasions mistake; mistake disappointment; 
and disappointment is misery.” 

21 Cf. “He raised a mortal to the skies; She drew an angel down” (Alexander’s 
Feast); ‘‘In peace the thoughts of war he could remove” (Absolem and Arcitophel); 
“Cool was his kitchen, though his brains were hot” (Ibid.); ‘With weak defense 


against so strong a charge” (Hind and Panther); “her new-made union with her 
ancient foes” (Ibid.). 


APPENDIX 85 


and Pope was “All arm’d with points, antitheses, and puns” (Dunc. 
I, 254) 4 

Johnson’s fondness for antithesis is evident in all his writings. The 
continual succession of balanced clauses renders his style somewhat 
cumbersome and monotonous. The form is especially useful to him in 
delineating an author’s character or style. Of Goldsmith he says: 
he is “a man who had the art of being minute without tediousness, 
and general without confusion; whose language was copious without 
exuberance, exact without constraint, and easy without weakness.” 

A critic says of Burke’s antitheses that they are “peculiarly valuable 
as examples, because they are real antitheses corresponding to a real 
opposition of ideas, and because they are not so frequent or so protracted 
as to become monotonous—excellencies which cannot be fully appreci- 
ated without a thorough study of one of Burke’s speeches as a whole. 
In striking contrast with this great writer’s temperate use of antithesis 
are the excesses into which Dr. Johnson, Gibbon, Junius, and Macaulay 
fall 252 


2 See the opening lines on the Essay on Criticism. Cf. Essay on Man, 1, 54 ff.: 
“Two principles in human nature reign; Self-love to urge and Reason to restrain; 
Nor this a good, nor that a bad we call, Each works its end, to move or govern all: 
And to their proper operation still, Ascribe all good; to their improper, Ill.” 

Blair remarks that Pope excelled in another kind of antithesis, the beauty of which 
consists in surprising us by the unexpected contrast of the things brought together; 
see Rhetoric, p. 188. 


38 “Johnson wrote a kind of rhyming prose, in which he was as much compelled 
to finish the different clauses of his sentences and to balance one period against another, 
as the writer of heroic verse is to keep to lines of ten syllables with similar terminations. 
He no sooner acknowledges the merits of his author”—he is speaking of Johnson’s 
criticism of Shakespeare— “in one line, than the periodic revolution of his style car- 
ries the weight of his opinion completely over to the side of objection, thus keeping 
up a perpetual alternation of perfections and absurdities.” Hazlitt, in preface to 
Characters of Shakespeare’s Plays. 


24 Hill, Op. Cit., p. 191. 


5 Cf. the following passage from Burke’s Reflections on the French Revolution: 
“Humanity and compassion are ridiculed as the fruits of superstition and ignorance. 
Tenderness to individuals is considered as treason to the public. Liberty is always 
to be estimated perfect as property is rendered insecure. Amidst assassination, 
massacre, and confiscation, perpetrated or meditated, they are forming plans for the 
good order of future society,” etc. Compare Thucydides II, 82, 4: “Reckless daring 
was esteemed loyal courage—prudent delay, specious cowardice; temperance seemed 
a cloak for pusillanimity; comprehensive sagacity was called universal indifference.” 


86 ANTITHESIS IN ATTIC ORATORS, ANTIPHON ΤΟ ISAEUS 


Goldsmith, says Minto,” “was taken with the charm of rhetorical 


antithesis, and laboured to deliver his sayings in an antithetical form. 
In his Polite Learning we can read but few sentences without encounter- 
ing a formal point; and here and there we find this general sparkle 
condensed into the brilliancy of an epigram.”?? 


The well-known feature of Macaulay’s style—his inveterate ten- 
dency toward antithetical expression—was, no doubt, partly induced 
by study of the classics, for which he cherished great admiration. “ Ma- 
caulay had an excessive fondness for contrast of every kind—contrasted 
thought, paragraphs, sentences, words. There is no variety of contrast 
which is not to be found in the History. Sometimes they occur in a 
strong passage, adding strength to strength; sometimes in the events 
of a dreary debate, giving animation to what might be dull paragraphs. 
They are always sudden, always astonishing, always awakening,—never 
the same in form.”’8 It is only natural that we should now and then be 
led to distrust the statements of this trenchant writer, owing to his 
proneness to use antithetical expression.** The same tendency occa- 
sionally led Thucydides astray, and marred the éthos of Lysias’s orations. 


From the foregoing survey it appears that antithesis has been a 
more or less noticeable feature throughout the whole range of English 
Literature. We must assume that there was a predisposition to employ 
the figure before the abuse in Euphuism developed. Closer contact, 
directly or indirectly, with the classic Greek models gave immense: 
impetus to that stilted form of antithetic writing. The tendency per- 
sisted after the abuse ended, and continues still. Based, as it is, on 


36 Manual of English Prose Literature, p. 487. 


27 Speaking of Gray’s Odes, Goldsmith remarks, ‘‘We cannot without regret 
behold talents so capable of giving pleasure to all, exerted in efforts that at least 
can amuse only the few.” Again, he says, “‘We see more of the world by travel, 
more of human nature by remaining at home.” 

Antitheses are frequent in his poem, Retaliation. 


28 Hughs, Macaulay the Rhetorician, p. 171. For a similar criticism see Jebb, 
Macaulay, p. 52 1. Minto criticizes this feature of Macaulay’s style adversely (p. 101). 


20 Cf. “If they were unacquainted with the works of philosophers, they were deeply 
read in the oracles of God.” “The Puritans hated bear-baiting, not because it gave 
pain to the bear, but because it gave pleasure to the spectators” (Hist., Ch. II). 

For a thorough analysis of Macaulay’s antithetical style, with illustrations, see 
D. A. Hughs, Thomas Babington Macaulay: the Rhetorician, p. 171, and compare 
Minto, Manual of English Prose Literature, p. 99 ff. 


APPENDIX 87 


elemental psychological principles, antithesis, with reasonable limita- 
tions, must ever remain a prime factor in forceful, artistic expression.*? 

Without pressing the analogy too closely, we may compare the 
Euphuistic period of English literature to the advent of the Gorgianic 
prose and the development of sophistic writing in Greece. In either 
case, the tendency toward antithetical writing sprang from an original 
native impulse, was fostered and accelerated by outside influences, 
and the abuse developed. In English as in Greek the figure, though 
misappropriated by less careful writers, always remained an effective 
and useful instrument with the masters of style. 


80 “The popularity of the figure, and its value as an aid to memory, may be inferred 
from the fact that many of our old Saxon proverbs are antithetical in form; as ‘Waste 
not, want not,’—‘Meddle and muddle,—‘Harm watch, harm catch,—‘Fore- 
warned, forearmed.”’—Quackenbos, Practical Rhetoric, p. 296. 


i i Niges 
se i 


Α Γι ὦ, , } 
νον = a her ᾿ Ἢ *, a 


RL 


Cink hh 
ws mn ae . ee 


anna ae. 


Ae tras é 


ake 


wok 








HOME USE 
CIRCULATION DEPARTMENT 
MAIN LIBRARY 


This book is due on the last date stamped below. 
1-month loans may be renewed by calling 642-3405. ow. 
6-month loans may be recharged by bringing books 
----- to Circulation Desk. 
Renewals and _— may be made 4 days prior 
0 du 


x 





ALL BOOKS ARE SUBJECT TO RECALL 7 DAYS 
AFTER DATE CHECKED OUT. 






SIR the τ el ee ‘ “ 
q 

«ΑΝ vic 415 
! 


AUTO. DISC. δ᾽ 
Αὐα 2 7 1986 
LD21—A—40m-12,'74 General Library 


(S2700L) University of California 
Berkeley 





GENERAL LIBRARY - U.C. BERKELEY 


ἽΙ AO A 





τ -gooos7sos 








